Case ID: f-appx_265/html/0622-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUCK MYUNG KIM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70914.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
    Claire H. Kim, Esq., Law Offices of Claire H. Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Bryan S. Beier, Esq., M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Suck Myung Kim, a native and citizen of Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kim’s challenge to the denial of suspension of deportation based on the discretionary determination that Kim lacks good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1997).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 13, 2004 order denying Kim’s motion to reopen because he failed to timely petition this court for review of that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Kim does not raise a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

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