Demostehenes Yu, a.k.a. Demosthenes Yu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DEMOSTEHENES YU, a.k.a.
Demosthenes Yu,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73964
Agency No. A089-451-519
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Demostehenes Yu, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
FILED
SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73964 2
special-rule cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 (“VAWA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations and review de novo
questions of law. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Yu failed to
establish that he had been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by his U.S.-
citizen spouse, see id. at 840 (observing that “mere unkindness” does not qualify as
extreme cruelty under VAWA’s “extreme concept of domestic violence”), as is
required to qualify for VAWA special-rule cancellation, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)). Accordingly, Yu’s contention that the agency violated his
right to due process by denying his application for VAWA cancellation fails. See
Flores Juarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)
(requiring a showing of error to prevail on a due process claim).
Because our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, we do not consider
Yu’s challenges to the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA did not expressly
adopt it. See Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Where
the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law . . . , our review is limited

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73964 3
to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --