
    Jose BARRERA MEMBRENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75519.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
    
      Jose Barrera Membreno, Brawley, CA, pro se.
    CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, OIL, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, 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: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Barrera Membreno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Barrera Membreno’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s July 21, 2006, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

It follows that the denial of Barrera Membreno’s motion to reconsider did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

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