Case Name: Ricardo Quintero BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 05-75324
Parties: Ricardo Quintero BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 650–650

Head Matter:
Ricardo Quintero BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75324.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
Nathan M. Zaslow, Esq., Law Office of Walter R. Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, 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
Ricardo Quintero Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, see Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision affirming the IJ's order denying cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (c)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to enlarge petitioner's grant of voluntary departure from 30 days to 60 days because such a decision is a discretionary determination. See Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179, 1186 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.