
    Tereso Sanchez CASTILLO; Albertha Sanchez; Cesar Ivan Sanchez Diaz, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76932.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007.
    
    Filed March 15, 2007.
    Tereso Sanchez Castillo, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Albertha Sanchez, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Cesar Ivan Sanchez Diaz, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Leslie McKay, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tereso Sanchez Castillo, Albertha Sanchez, husband and wife, Cesar Ivan Sanchez Diaz, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition and their son for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reconsider and to reopen proceedings in which they were denied cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Menda v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any legal or factual errors in the BIA’s underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioners failed to provide any new evidence to support their motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     