
    Beatriz Elena ESPINEL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70552.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 12, 2010.
    Beatriz Elena Espinel, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      OIL, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, 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: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Beatriz Elena Espinel, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Espinel’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Espinéis motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence she submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review Espinéis IJ bias contention because she failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 10, 2006, order, dismissing Espi-nel’s direct appeal from the IJ’s decision, because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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