
    Rano GABA; Rajesh Kumar, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 27, 2007.
    
    Filed Sept. 6, 2007.
    Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Bruce A. Ross, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rano Gaba and her husband, Rajesh Kumar, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider its prior order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reconsider because they failed to show an error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision dismissing their appeal. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

The petitioners contend their due process rights were violated because the IJ did not properly explain their appeal rights and the IJ’s oral decision was not translated. We lack jurisdiction to consider these contentions because the petitioners failed to raise them in their appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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.
     