Case Name: Alvaro LOZANO-VEGA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-23
Citations: 555 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 13-2590
Parties: Alvaro LOZANO-VEGA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
Alvaro LOZANO-VEGA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 13-2590.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 9, 2014.
Filed: May 23, 2014.
Allan Harvey Bell, Allan H. Bell & Associates, Kansas City, MO, for Petitioner.
Karen Yolanda Drummond, Allison Frayer, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mexican citizen Alvaro Lozano-Vega petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), denying his request to reopen his case to apply for asylum, and upholding an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal. After careful consideration of the petition, we find no basis for reversal.
First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of cancellation of removal. See Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relative); see also Pinos-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 441 (8th Cir.2008) ("Because [alien] has no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in the discretionary relief of cancellation of removal, he cannot establish a due process right in the proceedings to obtain that relief."). Second, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting his ineffective-assistance claim and denying his request to reopen his case. See Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 863-64 (8th Cir.2006) (no abuse of discretion in requiring substantial compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988)); Raffington v. INS, 340 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir.2003) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen on ground that alien failed to present prima facie case for asylum).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.