Case Name: Florencio SANCHEZ-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-24
Citations: 297 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 05-72094
Parties: Florencio SANCHEZ-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Florencio SANCHEZ-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72094.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2008.
Filed Oct. 24, 2008.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Manuel Palau, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, 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
Florencio Sanchez-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to 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 the motion to reconsider because Sanchez-Diaz knowingly and voluntarily withdrew his asylum application after consultation with his counsel. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must identify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(1) (IJ shall inform an individual he may apply for asylum if there is no previously filed application).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.