
    Alex R. DAIKOKU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 12-3726 (L), 13-1347(Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 29, 2014.
    
      Reuben S. Kerben (Lawrence S. Ker-ben, on the brief), New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Julia J. Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation; Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Alex R. Daikoku, a native and citizen of Panama, seeks review of: (1) an August 23, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the January 20, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, denying him special rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), In re Alex R. Daikoku, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 23, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 20, 2011); and (2) a March 12, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Alex R. Daikoku, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Daikoku’s petition from the agency’s final order of removal (12-3726(L)) does not challenge the agency’s denial of his application for special rule cancellation of removal. The argument is that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) intentionally delayed adjudication of his wife’s visa petition, the IJ failed to correct that delay, and as a result, he was deprived of a due process right to apply for adjustment of status. We are without jurisdiction to consider Daikoku’s claim in this petition because it was not exhausted on appeal to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A), (d)(1); see also James v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 250, 258-59 (2d Cir.2008).

Daikoku’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen (13-1347(Con)) raises no challenge to the BIA’s dispositive bases for denying his motion: untimeliness and the absence of new evidence. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005). Those findings were not in error. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B), (C)(i).

We need not consider the BIA’s alternative ruling that Daikoku failed to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility to adjust status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). Daikoku cannot demonstrate the requisite prejudice because USCIS has denied his wife’s visa petition, rendering him ineligible to adjust status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1), (2); see also Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir.2008).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review in 12-3726(L) is DISMISSED and the petition for review in 13-1347(Con) is DENIED.  