22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T418,MEMORANDUM Ofelia Medrano Wamea, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reconsider. 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Medrano Wamea’s motion to reconsider because the motion was untimely and failed to specify error in the IJ’s removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), (2). To the extent Medrano Wamea seeks an extension of her voluntary departure period, the request is denied. See Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2003); see also Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004) (order). Medrano Wamea’s remaining contentions lack merit. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T44f,

MEMORANDUM

Ofelia Medrano Wamea, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reconsider. 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Medrano Wamea’s motion to reconsider because the motion was untimely and failed to specify error in the IJ’s removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), (2).

To the extent Medrano Wamea seeks an extension of her voluntary departure period, the request is denied. See Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2003); see also Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004) (order).

Medrano Wamea’s remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.