Case ID: f-appx_612/html/0869-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymundo DURAN-BARRAZA, Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 14-3269.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 24, 2015.
    Filed: Aug. 27, 2015.
    Sanjay Sobti, Corona, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Beadle Holt, Trial Attorney, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Loretta E. Lynch has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States and is substituted as respondent under Rule 43(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Raymundo Duran-Barraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have carefully considered the record and the parties’ submissions, mindful that we do not review the discretionary denial of relief itself. See Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir.2008); see also Hernandez-Garcia v. Holder, 765 F.3d 815, 816-17 (8th Cir.2014) (reiterating that a petitioner has no right to due process in the discretionary cancellation-of-removal remedy). In particular, we note that Duran-Barraza’s petition centers around his complaint that the IJ and BIA failed to adequately consider his evidence of hardship. Significantly, however, Duran-Barraza did not seek BIA review of the IJ’s findings on two other independently dispositive bases for denial of his application, namely, failure to show physical presence in the United States for ten continuous years and good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l) (stating the' prerequisites for consideration of cancellation of removal).

We deny the petition for review.