
    Hazem Michael MOUNAYER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-70502, 07-72475.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 2, 2010.
    Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Hazem Michael Mounayer, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order, and denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). In No. 07-7502, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. In No. 07-72475, we deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Moun-ayer’s contention that he is not removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony because Mounayer failed to properly raise this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Mounayer’s contention that the IJ’s reconstruction of the hearing transcript violated due process is unavailing. See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mounayer’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to demonstrate an error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

In No. 07-70502: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

In No. 07-72475: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     