* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5TH CIR. 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 of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b

as well as the BIA’s denial of his 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

Clerk
No. 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 of removal

because his deportation will cause hardship to his family and because the IJ

ignored some ofthe evidence when 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

argumentis unavailing. See Delgado-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 no due process rights in connection with discretionary relief such 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 of his motion for

reconsideration, in which he maintained that his removal proceedings should 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.