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:T442,MEMORANDUM Imelda Perez-Bernal and Elida Fabiola Hernandez-Perez, mother and daughter and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s November 5, 2004 decision denying their earlier motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1). To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s November 5, 2004 order, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). 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. 36-3.24:T474,

MEMORANDUM

Imelda Perez-Bernal and Elida Fabiola Hernandez-Perez, mother and daughter and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s November 5, 2004 decision denying their earlier motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1).

To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s November 5, 2004 order, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.