Case Name: Claudia Torres de RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-26
Citations: 271 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 05-70104
Parties: Claudia Torres de RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Claudia Torres de RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70104.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 26, 2008.
Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Susan K. Houser, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Claudia Torres de Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider its decision summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Torres' motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order affirming the IJ's decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 854 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding the BIA's streamlining procedures).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.