
    Manuel MOLINA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71128.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed March 12, 2008.
    Manuel Molina, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    Lilia Molina, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security Oil, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Molina and Lilia Molina, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider its prior order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

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

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that they received ineffective assistance of counsel because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
     