FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAU LOPEZ-RECINOS, a.k.a. Gesu No. 08-73940
Lopez, a.k.a. Isau Lopez, a.k.a. Francisco
Recinos, a.k.a. Francisco Resinos, Agency No. A094-453-312
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Isau Lopez-Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Lopez-Recinos failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.
2009).
Lopez-Recinos’ contentions that the agency violated his due process rights
by disregarding his evidence of hardship are not supported by the record and do
not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See id. at 980; see also
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[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 review Lopez-Recinos’ unexhausted contentions
that the IJ violated due process by prohibiting him from filing a Temporary
Protective Status (“TPS”) application and that the government erred by failing to
advise him of his right to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 08-73940
We do not reach Lopez-Recinos’ contentions regarding whether he merited
TPS because he did not file a TPS application before the IJ.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
3 08-73940