Albertina Gonzalez-Gonzalez 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTINA GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72030
Agency No. A098-652-147
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Albertina Gonzalez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v.
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72030 2
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 Gonzalez-Gonzalez’s
motion to reconsider because she failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
Gonzalez-Gonzalez failed to raise a colorable due process claim. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez-Gonzalez’s contention that her
case warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). Thus, we dismiss Gonzalez-
Gonzalez’s motion requesting it.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --