IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60172
Summary Calendar
JERONIMO MORALES-PALACIOS,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A24 842 892
- - - - - - - - - -
January 29, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeronimo Morales-Palacios has filed a petition for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen his deportation proceeding, which he filed so
that his application for suspension of deportation under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”)
could be adjudicated. The BIA denied the motion, which was filed
on September 11, 1998, as untimely under the applicable NACARA
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-60172
-2-
regulatory deadlines because Morales did not supplement it with
the requisite documents by November 18, 1999. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 3.43(e)(2).
Morales does not deny that his motion was untimely. He
argues that the INS deprived him of his right to Fifth Amendment
Due Process by not reopening removal proceedings pursuant to
NACARA § 203 where he demonstrated ineffective assistance of
counsel. However, both the motion to reopen and the suspension
of deportation relief sought by Morales are discretionary forms
of relief in which he has no due process interest. INS v. Yueh-
Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 29-30 (1997); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323 (1992); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 (1988). Aliens
who seek only discretionary relief from deportation have no
constitutional right to receive that relief or to otherwise
remain in the United States. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342
U.S. 580, 586-87 (1952); Finlay v. INS, 210 F.3d 556, 557 (5th
Cir. 2000). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in relying on
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 638 (BIA 1988), to deny
relief on Morales’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as
Morales did not meet the Lozada requirements. See Lara v.
Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
For the foregoing reasons, Morales’ petition for review is
DENIED.