
    Juan Francisco HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71032.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 7, 2009.
    Michael John Hernandez, The Hernandez Law Group, Montebello, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Francisco Hernandez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to rescind a deportation order entered in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Hernandez’s motion to reopen on the ground that he had received the required notices in his proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(3) (repealed 1996).

Hernandez-Hernandez’s due process claim regarding the translation of his order to show cause fails because it is not supported by the record. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir.2004) (due process satisfied by actual notice). We do not reach Hernandez-Hernandez’s contention that he was denied due process because he did not receive a Spanish version of the notice of hearing as he did not exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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