NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HORTENCIA TOBIAS DE MOTA, No. 17-73341 Petitioner, Agency No. A024-123-049 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Hortencia Tobias de Mota, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying reconsideration of its prior order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo questions of law and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tobias de Mota’s motion to reconsider for failure to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order, where she failed to establish that the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening departed from a settled course of adjudication or involved any “incorrect legal premise.”

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (the court’s jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error).

The BIA sufficiently explained its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 17-73341