
    Sofia Saldivar DELATORRE, AKA Sofia Delatorre, AKA Sofia Saldivar, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71254
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Azubuike Osemene, Attorney, East-West Law Center, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    
      Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sofia Saldivar Delatorre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C, § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Delatorre’s motion to reconsider, where she failed to establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) (defining good moral character “[f]or the purposes of this Act”);. cf. Romero-Ochoa v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1328, 1330-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7) was constitutional in the context of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1), 1229c(b)(1)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     