Case Name: Salomon MANZANAREZ M, a.k.a. Salomon Manzanarez-Melchor; Adela Hernandez-Claudio, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-16
Citations: 538 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 10-73210
Parties: Salomon MANZANAREZ M, a.k.a. Sa-lomon Manzanarez-Melchor; Adela Hernandez-Claudio, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 764–764

Head Matter:
Salomon MANZANAREZ M, a.k.a. Sa-lomon Manzanarez-Melchor; Adela Hernandez-Claudio, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73210.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
Salomon Manzanarez M, Adela Hernandez-Claudio, CA, pro se.
Gregory Michael Kelch, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Salomon Manzanarez M and Adela Hernandez-Claudio, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider the BIA's prior order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and deny the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision denying petitioners' motion to reopen removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.