Alvaro Lozano-Vega v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 13-2590 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - immigration. Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in rejecting alien's ineffective-assistance claim and denying his request to reopen. Court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of cancellation of removal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2590 ___________________________ Alvaro Lozano-Vega lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: May 9, 2014 Filed: May 23, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ 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. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
