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:T528,MEMORANDUM Pablo Angel Rodriguez-Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider and review de novo legal and constitutional claims. 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 Rodriguez-Arellano’s motion to reconsider where the motion did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1). It follows that the BIA did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). To the extent Rodriguez-Arellano raises a due process challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his direct appeal, we lack jurisdiction because he failed to file a petition for review of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55a,

MEMORANDUM

Pablo Angel Rodriguez-Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider and review de novo legal and constitutional claims. 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 Rodriguez-Arellano’s motion to reconsider where the motion did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1). It follows that the BIA did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

To the extent Rodriguez-Arellano raises a due process challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his direct appeal, we lack jurisdiction because he failed to file a petition for review of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.