Court Opinion

ID: 179863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-11-24 18:01:15+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:49.931413
License: Public Domain

FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           NOV 23 2010

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHAN TIOANDA,                                    No. 08-74055

               Petitioner,                        Agency No. A097-125-665

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted November 16, 2010 **

Before:        TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

       Johan Tioanda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Tioanda failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying

relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

Tioanda’s contention that the agency violated due process by failing to adequately

consider his evidence of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional

claim. See id. (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due

process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would

invoke our jurisdiction.”).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Tioanda’s contention that the IJ prejudged

his cancellation application because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

                                          2                                   08-74055