
    Maria Guadalupe NAVARRO-PULIDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75179.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Aug. 22, 2007.
    Maria Guadalupe Navarro-Pulido, Col-ton, 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, Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Guadalupe Navarro-Pulido, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider or 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 when it denied Navarro-Pulido’s motion to reconsider because it faded to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. 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).

Because Navarro-Pulido sought to introduce new evidence in her motion to reconsider, the BIA also construed the motion as a second motion to reopen. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Navarro-Pulido’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) & (3).

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