¶1MEMORANDUM
¶2Avelino Fernandes, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen *355and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
¶3The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Fernandes’ motion to reopen for failure to establish “exceptional circumstances.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l).
¶4It follows that the denial of Fernandes’ motion to reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
¶5PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
¶6 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.