
    Shirley Ingrid Patricia TURANGAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71967.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shirley Ingrid Patricia Turangan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider or reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Turangan’s motion to reconsider where Turangan did not point to any error of law or fact in the BIA’s underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Finally, with respect to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen, Turangan does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to show her religious studies established a prima facie case that it is more likely than not she would face persecution in Indonesia. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge made to the BIA’s October 20, 2010, Order because the petition is not timely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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