Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YOON HO KIM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 23, 2010.
    Stephen Shaiken, Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Russell John Verby, Trial, Tim Ramnitz, Trial, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yoon Ho Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations, Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Kim’s contention that the government should be equitably estopped from ordering his removal. Because “the government is not bound by the unauthorized acts of its agents,” Kim cannot show “affirmative misconduct going beyond mere negligence” on the part of the government to warrant estoppel. Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir.2008) (“[T]he government cannot be saddled with the felonious, unauthorized issuance of residency documentation by a thieving employee.”).

We find no defects amounting to a due process violation. See Shin, 547 F.3d at 1024-25; Hong v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.