
    Maria Olimpia VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70741.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
    Maria Olimpia Vasquez, North Hills, CA, pro se.
    Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, Julie M. Iver-sen, Trial, 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: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Olimpia Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for .review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) February 10, 2012, order denying her motion to reconsider its October 12, 2011, order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

To the extent Vasquez challenges the agency’s underlying order denying the merits of her claims, we lack jurisdiction to review it because Vasquez did not file a petition for review of that order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005).

We reject Vasquez’s requests for a remand or mediation to consider her application for Cancellation of Removal because the record does not indicate that Vasquez applied for this relief.

Finally, we deny Vasquez’s general request for a remand as stated in her motion to stay removal.

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.
     