
    Valentin Reyes AMBRIS; Maria Perez Vega, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73679.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 7, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2008.
    Michael Franquinha, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
    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, W. Daniel Shieh, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motions to reconsider and to reopen.

We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the challenged BIA order. Further, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in alternatively denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because petitioners had not demonstrated errors of fact or law in the challenged BIA order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case if a prior adverse discretionary decision was made by the agency).

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.
     