Case Name: Mayra Lorena ALVARADO-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-16
Citations: 497 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 11-73017
Parties: Mayra Lorena ALVARADO-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 497
Pages: 765–765

Head Matter:
Mayra Lorena ALVARADO-CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73017.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
Mayra Lorena Alvarado-Castillo, San Paula, CA, pro se.
OIL, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mayra Lorena Alvarado-Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider the underlying denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Alvarado-Castillo contends that the BIA did not properly consider the persecution she suffered in the past, and fears in the future, in El Salvador. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarado-Castillo's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision upholding the denial of petitioner's applications for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.