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:T441,MEMORANDUM J. Jesus Barron-Miranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider, Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 ; Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir.2013). 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 Barron-Miranda’s motion to reconsider because he failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1). We lack jurisdiction to consider Barron-Miranda’s contentions regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture because he did not raise them in his motion to reconsider. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). 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:T473,

MEMORANDUM

J. Jesus Barron-Miranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider, Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 ; Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir.2013). 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 Barron-Miranda’s motion to reconsider because he failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Barron-Miranda’s contentions regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture because he did not raise them in his motion to reconsider. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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.