Bd. did not err in denying alien’s requests to reopen and reconsider prior Bd.’s order denying alien’s (citizen of Mexico) application for withholding of removal based on claim that his removal would pose extreme hardship on his three minor U.S.-born children. Alien failed to identify any overlooked error of fact from original removal order, and Bd. gave adequate reasons for denying alien’s claim that drug-related violence in Mexico would pose unusual risk for his children. Ct. also rejected alien’s claim that instant denials violated of his equal protection rights due to fact that Bd. had reopened cases of two other Mexican aliens based on similar claims of drug-related violence, where Ct. found that prior cases came to Bd. under different procedural posture.