Case Name: Rafael LOYOLA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-06
Citations: 239 F. App'x 928
Docket Number: No. 06-60649
Parties: Rafael LOYOLA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 928–929

Head Matter:
Rafael LOYOLA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-60649
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 6, 2007.
Alejandro Hernandez, Law Office of Alex Hernandez, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Robert N. Markle, Paul Franklin Stone, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Ethan B. Kanter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, Attn: Carl Perry, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before KING, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Loyola-Gomez (Loyola) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of an adjustment of status. Loyola argues that the BIA violated his procedural due process rights when it refused to exercise its discretion to accept his out-of-time appellate brief. The brief was submitted several days late and was accompanied by an untimely request for an extension of the filing time.
The relief sought by Loyola (namely, an adjustment of status to that of a legal permanent resident) is discretionary in nature and is not afforded due process protection. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2006). To the extent that Loyola argues that the BIA erred in affirming the denial of an adjustment of status, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 528-29 (5th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.