
    Sabina PONCE-REYNOSO; Jose Casillas-Tejada, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74534.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Sabina Ponce-Reynoso, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Jose Casillas-Tejada, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, 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. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sabina Ponce-Reynoso and Jose Casillas-Tejada, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reconsider as untimely because the motion was filed more than one year after the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of BIA’s decision).

Petitioners’ claim that the BIA’s order violated due process therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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