Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0886-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WAN SOO CHEE; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71952.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 10, 2011.
    Alex C. Park, Esquire, Law Offices of Alex C. Park, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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

Wan Soo Chee, Kum Nam Chee, Sung Ae Chee, and Bong Suk Chee, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their 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 petitioners’ contention that the government failed to establish remova-bility by clear and convincing evidence, because they 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)).

Petitioners’ contention that the government should be equitably estopped from ordering their 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).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are not persuasive.

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