Johan Tioanda v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHAN TIOANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74055
Agency No. A097-125-665
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74055 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 of 2 --