Case Name: Roxanna Judith GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 399 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 08-72667
Parties: Roxanna Judith GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
Roxanna Judith GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72667.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
Roxanna Judith Guerra, Alena Ray, Esquire, Law Office of Enrique Arevalo, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Jennifer Paisner Williams, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Roxanna Judith Guerra, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Guerra's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision denying Guerra's motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.