
    Sandra Patricia MORALES-MAZARIEGOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Sandra Patricia Morales-Mazariegos, Pomona, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sandra Patricia Morales-Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Mazariegos’s motion to reconsider where the motion failed to establish any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior order denying Morales-Mazar-iego’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

To the extent that Morales-Mazariegos challenges the BIA’s underlying order denying her motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction 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 order); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     