
    Rafael Antonio ROSALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74412.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 11, 2010.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Esquire, Quintanil-la Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Liza Murcia, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rafael Antonio Rosales, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings held in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir.2008), and de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rosales’ motion to reopen because he had received both oral and written notice of his next scheduled hearing at which he did not appear. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements). Rosales’ due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

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