
    Salvador ALCALA-URVINA, a.k.a. Salvador Urvina, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-74206.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2014.
    Ramiro Jose Lluis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Karen L. Melnik, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salvador Alcala-Urvina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alcala-Urvina’s motion to reconsider, where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision dismissing his appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must identify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); see also Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir.2004).

We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s June 18, 2012, order dismissing Alcala-Urvina’s appeal because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed within 30 days of the final order of removal).

We lack jurisdiction to review Alcala-Urvina’s claim that the immigration judge abused her discretion in denying his request for a fourth continuance, because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA in his motion to reconsider and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

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.
     