Case Name: Jose Angel MIRAMONTES-CIGARROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-31
Citations: 344 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 08-74631
Parties: Jose Angel MIRAMONTES-CIGARROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
Jose Angel MIRAMONTES-CIGARROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74631.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
Jose Angel Miramontes-Cigarroa, La Puente, CA, pro se.
Patrick James Glen, Esquire, 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: WALLACE, 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
Jose Angel Miramontes-Cigarroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because he failed to offer any new or previously unavailable evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) & (c). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider because he failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA's prior decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Finally, petitioner has failed to state a color-able equal protection claim. See Masnauskas v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1067, 1070-71 (9th Cir.2005); Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.