
    Ana Luisa RENTERIA DE TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-71511, 07-73325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
    Jason S. Campbell, Esq., Law Office of Jessica Dominguez, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, John G. Amaya, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions, Ana Luisa Renteria De Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Renteria De Torres’ motion to reopen because she presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Renteria De Torres’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s March 22, 2007 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).

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