Case Name: Pedro Roman VAZQUEZ; Francisca Roman, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-02
Citations: 344 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 06-71878
Parties: Pedro Roman VAZQUEZ; Francisca Roman, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
Pedro Roman VAZQUEZ; Francisca Roman, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71878.
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Sept. 2, 2009.
Pedro Roman Vazquez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Francisca Roman, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, Joan Estelle Smiley, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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
Pedro Roman Vazquez and Francisca Roman, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying Roman Vazquez's 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 acted within its discretion in denying Roman Vazquez's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's December 29, 2005, order.' See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's underlying order dismissing petitioners' direct appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.