Case Name: Albertina GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-26
Citations: 540 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 11-72030
Parties: Albertina GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
Albertina GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72030.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
Albertina Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Los Ange-les, CA, pro se.
OIL, Nancy Canter, Trial, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Albertina Gonzalez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez-Gonzalez's motion to reconsider because she failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
Gonzalez-Gonzalez failed to raise a col-orable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez-Gonzalez's contention that her case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecuto-rial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order). Thus, we dismiss Gonzalez-Gonzalez's motion requesting it.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.