Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0873-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHANG HOON KIM, a.k.a. Frank Chang Hoon Kim, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74508.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 10, 2011.
    Alex C. Park, Esquire, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial, Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, IKUTA, 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

Chang Hoon 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, and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Kim’s contention that the government failed to establish removability by clear and convincing evidence, because Kim conceded removability. See Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.2008) (“[Wjhere the alien concedes removability, the government’s burden in this regard is satisfied.” (citation and quotation omitted)).

Kim’s contention that the government should be equitably estopped from ordering his removal is unavailing. See Sulit v. Schiltgen, 213 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir.2000) (“[Ejstoppel against the government is unavailable where petitioners have not lost any rights to which they were entitled.”); cf. Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1165-68 (9th Cir.2005).

Kim’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

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