
    Abd El Aziz Fahmy MINSSY; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70945.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2009.
    Valerie Curtis-Diop, Esquire, Law Offices of Valerie Curtis-Diop, Armineh Ebrahimian, Esquire, The A.D.I.L.A. Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Timothy James Sea-right, Assistant U.S., Rosalind Wang, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Abd El Aziz Fahmy Minssy, and his family, natives and citizens of Egypt, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s October 4, 2005, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that their former counsel Gary Silbiger was ineffective because petitioners failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000)

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.
     