Case Name: Aleksandar SPASIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-07
Citations: 336 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 08-72330
Parties: Aleksandar SPASIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 336
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
Aleksandar SPASIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72330.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 7, 2009.
Aleksandar Spasic, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
OIL, Sada Manickam, Esquire, Trial, 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: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Aleksandar Spasic, a native and citizen of Serbia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Spasic's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact that would justify granting relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2009).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Spasic's motion to reopen because he failed to provide any previously unavailable and material evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2009). It follows that Spasic has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to succeed 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.