Case Name: DONG YING CHEN, aka Cheung Ming Yeung, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-23
Citations: 329 F. App'x 750
Docket Number: No. 06-75744
Parties: DONG YING CHEN, aka Cheung Ming Yeung, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 750–750

Head Matter:
DONG YING CHEN, aka Cheung Ming Yeung, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75744.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 23, 2009.
Anthony Santarelli, Esq., Law Office of Anthony Santarelli, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Petitioner.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dong Ying Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen's motion to reopen because he failed to offer any new or previously unavailable evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA's prior decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
Lastly, we reject Chen's contention that the BIA's denial of his motions violated due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.