Case Name: Leticia Morales De BOLANOS; Pedro Bolanos Yllescas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-02
Citations: 344 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 06-73253
Parties: Leticia Morales De BOLANOS; Pedro Bolanos Yllescas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
Leticia Morales De BOLANOS; Pedro Bolanos Yllescas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73253.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Sept. 2, 2009.
Leticia Morales De Bolanos, Fillmore, CA, pro se.
Pedro Bolanos Yllescas, Fillmore, CA, pro se.
Brooke Maurer, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leticia Morales de Bolanos and Pedro Bolanos Yllescas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any errors of fact or law in the BIA's April 10, 2006, order denying their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA's conclusion that, construed as a motion to reopen, the motion was numerically barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.