* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60596 Summary Calendar

BALKAR SINGH JOSAN Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A92 775 030
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Balkar Singh Josan petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial ofhis application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b
as well as the BIA’s denial ofhis motion for reconsideration. Josan asserts that his removal proceedings are invalid and should be terminated because his application for relief pursuant to the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act was used in connection with his removal proceedings in violation of the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 3, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60596

2 confidentiality provision found at 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5). Josan also contends that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his application for cancellation ofremoval because his deportation will cause hardship to his family and because the IJ ignored some oftheevidencewhen conducting the hardship analysis. He insists that his due process rights have been infringed because the cancellation places
an unconstitutionally high burden on aliens seeking relief, and that his children’s due process rights were violated by the denial of his request for cancellation of removal. Josan has shown no error in connection with the BIA’s decisions. To the extent that Josan challenges the BIA’s discretionary denial of his request for cancellation, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (ii); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). Josan attempts to circumvent this jurisdictional limitation by arguing that his claim concerning the IJ’s hardship analysis presents a legal question. This argument isunavailing. SeeDelgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006). As we lack jurisdiction to review the hardship determination, Josan’s petition for review is dismissed in part for want of jurisdiction. We do, however, have jurisdiction to consider the due process challenges that Josan raises in relation to the denial of his request for cancellation of removal. When we consider these challenges, we conclude that they lack merit. Aliens have nodue process rights in connection with discretionary reliefsuch as cancellation of removal. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003); see also § 1229b. Josan’s assertions concerning his children’s rights are unavailing because these rights are not at issue in this action. See Garcia
v. Boldin, 691 F.2d 1172, 1183 (5th Cir. 1982). Josan has not shown a violation of his due process rights in connection with the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of Josan’s request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, his petition for review of this decision is denied in part.No. 07-60596

3 Josan has not shown error in connection with the denial ofhis motion for reconsideration, in which he maintained that his removal proceedingsshould be terminated because they were incurably tainted by a breach of § 1255a(c)(5)’s confidentiality provision. The BIA rejected this argument because (1) the charge arising from the LIFE application was dismissed, (2) Josan admitted the charge
on which he was ordered removed, and (3) he had not shown that he was prejudiced by any error that occurred. There is no indication that this decision was “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence,
or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” See Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). Consequently, Josan’s petition for review of this decision is also denied. DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.