text:                                                                            FILED
                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 15 2012
  
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
  
  
  
  
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
  
  
  
  MORENA GUADALUPE MELGAR,                         No. 10-71866
  
                 Petitioner,                       Agency No. A072-232-417
  
    v.
                                                   MEMORANDUM *
  ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
  
                 Respondent.
  
  
  
                        On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
  
                               Submitted October 9, 2012 **
  
  Before:        RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
  
         Morena Guadalupe Melgar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
  
  review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
  
  reconsider the BIA’s prior decision dismissing her appeal and denying her motion
  
  to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
  
  
            *
               This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
  except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
            **
               The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
  without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
  of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d
  
  669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
  
  review.
  
        The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Melgar’s motion to
  
  reconsider where she did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s previous
  
  determinations that she did not qualify for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
  
  § 1229b(a), and that her motion to remand failed to show that the evidence she had
  
  submitted was not available at the time of her hearing before the immigration
  
  judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (c)(1); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
  
  1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The formal requirements of a motion to remand and a
  
  motion to reopen are the same.”).
  
        We lack jurisdiction to review Melgar’s contentions that 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(e)
  
  does not apply to individuals seeking cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
  
  § 1229b(a) and that the agency miscalculated her seven years of continuous
  
  residence under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) because she did not raise these claims
  
  before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
  
  (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before
  
  the agency).
  
        PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
  
  
                                             2                                     10-71866
  