22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T52d,MEMORANDUM Rafael Arevalo-Orozco, a native a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arevalo-Orozco’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to specify an error in the BIA’s underlying order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1). Contrary to his contention, Arevalo-Orozco is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3 (f)(5); Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 , 1207 & 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). Arevalo-Orozco’s remaining legal and constitutional challenges to the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for section 212(c) relief are unavailing. See Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1207 & 1208 n. 7. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55a,

MEMORANDUM

Rafael Arevalo-Orozco, a native a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arevalo-Orozco’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to specify an error in the BIA’s underlying order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1). Contrary to his contention, Arevalo-Orozco is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3 (f)(5); Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 , 1207 & 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). Arevalo-Orozco’s remaining legal and constitutional challenges to the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for section 212(c) relief are unavailing. See Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1207 & 1208 n. 7.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.