Case Name: Jose Manuel LOZANO-LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-17
Citations: 486 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: Nos. 06-73527, 06-74977
Parties: Jose Manuel LOZANO-LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
Jose Manuel LOZANO-LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 06-73527, 06-74977.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
Evelyn G. Zneimer, Esquire, Law Offices of Evelyn G. Zneimer, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Manuel Lozano-Leon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his request for a continuance and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009), and the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We review de novo claims of due process violations. Id. We deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Leon's request for a continuance. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (continuance may be granted for good cause).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Leon's motion to reconsider on the ground that the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.