Mateo Mendez-Zuniga appeals his conviction for illegal reentry. He presents an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225, 229-31 (5th Cir. 2002), which held that an immigration judge’s failure to explain the availability of discretionary relief in an immigration proceeding does not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. See id.; see also Romero-Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 672, 677 n. 5 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government’s motion for summary af-firmance is GRANTED, and the judgment *350 of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.