
    Rafael GARCIA-ROJAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 29, 2011.
    Rafael Garcia-Rojas, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Lisa Damiano, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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 Garcia-Rojas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Hernandez-Vivas v. INS, 23 F.3d 1557, 1560 (9th Cir.1994). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia-Rojas’ motion to reopen for failure to establish reasonable cause for his absence from the June 7,1990 deportation hearing. See Hemandez-Vivas, 23 F.3d at 1559 (mistaken belief that a timely motion to change venue negated court appearance does not constitute reasonable cause excusing failure to appear). Garcia-Rojas’ argument that the BIA and IJ rejected his motion under an incorrect legal standard is not supported by the record.

Garda-Rojas’ contention that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief under NACARA is without merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e) (establishing filing deadlines for motions to reopen seeking relief under NACARA).

Garda-Rojas’ contention that the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen violates his due process rights is also without merit. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.

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