Imelda Perez-Bernal; Elida Fabiola Hernandez-Perez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IMELDA PEREZ-BERNAL; ELIDA
FABIOLA HERNANDEZ-PEREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-72889
Agency Nos. A075-742-539
A075-742-540
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
JAN 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 05-72889 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --