Case Name: Felipe CORTES PARRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-18
Citations: 145 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 04-71678; Agency No. A75-475-976
Parties: Felipe CORTES PARRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HALL, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Felipe CORTES PARRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71678.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 18, 2005.
Raul Gomez, Law Office of Raul Gomez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, James E. Grimes, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HALL, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felipe Cortes Parra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reconsider its December 3, 2003 decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on new evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law in the agency's prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.2003). Here, the petitioner identified no error of law or fact in the BIA's prior determination that the mere existence of two new qualifying relatives did not warrant the reopening of proceedings in which the BIA had denied cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. Accordingly, the BIA's decision to deny reconsideration was well within its discretion and was not "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law." Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.