Case Name: Ines MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 05-72146
Parties: Ines MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
Ines MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72146.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Ines Martinez, Rialto, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John S. Hogan, Esq., 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
Ines Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") denial of her motion to reopen its earlier decision adopting and affirming an immigration judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review.
The Board in construing Martinez's motion as one for reconsideration did not abuse its discretion in denying relief because Martinez failed to demonstrate any errors of fact or law in the Board's earlier decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).
The Board also acted within its discretion in denying Martinez's motion to reopen because Martinez failed to support the motion with new or previously unavailable evidentiary material. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and (c); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.