Martin Rafael Fonseca Rojas; Nancy E. Fonseca v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN RAFAEL FONSECA ROJAS;
NANCY E. FONSECA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72246
Agency Nos. A099-740-272
A099-740-273
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Martin Rafael Fonseca Rojas and Nancy E. Fonseca, natives and citizens of
Peru, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
FILED
NOV 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (The BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every
contention.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72246 2

-- 2 of 2 --