
    Cecilio SANCHEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71559.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007 .
    Filed April 25, 2007.
    Cecilio Sanchez, Guadalupe, CA, pro se.
    Cira Sanchez, Guadalupe, CA, pro se.
    Luz Sanchez, Guadalupe, 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, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cecilio Sanchez, his wife Cira Sanchez, and their daughter Luz Sanchez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen, construed by the BIA as a motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and a motion to reopen. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioners’ motion to reopen because they failed to provide new or previously unavailable evidence to support their contentions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen “shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”). Construed as a motion to reconsider, the BIA was within its discretion in denying the Petitioners’ motion, because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision affirming the IJ’s order denying cancellation of removal. 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).

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