
    Alfonso LUA-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 04-71578, 04-72959.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Cesar Rodrigo Ternieden, Esquire, Law Office of Cesar R. Ternieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    AZP-Distriet Director, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Alfonso Lua-Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Sara-via-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122, 1129 n. 10 (9th Cir.2007), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petitions for review.

Lua-Nunez’s due process retroactivity contentions are unavailing because he pleaded guilty after the enactment and effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See Saravia-Paguada, 488 F.3d at 1132-33 (the past relevant conduct for the retroactivity analysis is the alien’s decision whether to enter a guilty plea or to proceed to trial, and not the commission of the underlying crime).

We reject Lua-Nunez’s contentions regarding alleged violations of international law. See generally Sosa v. Alvarez-Ma-chain, 542 U.S. 692, 734-85, 124 S.Ct. 2739,159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lua Nunez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

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