Case Name: Maria DE JESUS MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 141 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 04-71190, A95-200-671
Parties: Maria DE JESUS MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
Maria DE JESUS MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71190, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Maria De Jesus Munoz, La Puente, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Papú' Sandhu, Jennifer Keeney, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Div./Office Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria de Jesus Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency's denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, see Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Munoz's motion to reconsider because in her motion, Munoz merely argued she was eligible for cancellation without identifying any error of law or fact in the IJ's decision denying her motion to reopen because she failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel excused the untimely fifing of her underlying application for cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- * cation and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.