
    Rafael AREVALO-OROZCO, a.k.a. Rafael Arevalo Orosco, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70913.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2010.
    Xavier Rosas, The Root Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen J. Flynn, Senior Litigation Counsel, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Esquire, Oil, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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 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 Contrary to his contention, Arevalo-Orozco is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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.
     