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:T46a,MEMORANDUM Maria Janeht Rafael Depaz petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s dismissal of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rafael Depaz’s motion to reconsider where Rafael Depaz failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision). We lack jurisdiction to consider new arguments Rafael Depaz makes that she did not raise in her motion to reconsider to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T497,

MEMORANDUM

Maria Janeht Rafael Depaz petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s dismissal of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rafael Depaz’s motion to reconsider where Rafael Depaz failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision). We lack jurisdiction to consider new arguments Rafael Depaz makes that she did not raise in her motion to reconsider to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.