
    Vasiliy Yuryevich SALMIN; Pavel Yuryevich Salmin, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 1, 2010.
    Elena E. Tsiprin, Law Offices of Elena E. Tsiprin, Bellevue, WA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vasiliy Yuryevich Salmin and Pavel Yu-ryevich Salmin, natives and citizens of Russia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motions 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 reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We grant in part, remand in part, and deny in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Vasiliy Yuryevich Salmin’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to point to any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely and for failing to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

The BIA failed to address the contentions raised by Pavel Yuryevich Salmin in his motion to reconsider. We remand for the BIA to consider his contentions in the first instance. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.2005).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions. Each party shall bear its own costs in this petition for review.

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