Case ID: f-appx_378/html/0682-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HANG NAM YOON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74544.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 14, 2010.
    
    Filed May 6, 2010.
    Christopher James Todd, Law Office of Christopher Todd, Mill Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Hang Nam Yoon, Sunnyvale, CA, pro se. Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Cynthia M. Parsons, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, and MARTINEZ, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hang Nam Yoon (“Yoon”), a citizen of South Korea, brings this second petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) August 2004 order of removal, which deemed Yoon removable under INA § 287(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on an aggravated felony conviction. This court already decided in Yoon v. Gonzales, Case No. 04-74307, that Yoon’s conviction constitutes an aggravated felony, and consequently that the BIA’s removal order was valid, when it dismissed Yoon’s first petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Because Yoon could have presented his arguments concerning the effect of Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004), in his first petition, which was decided more than two months prior to this court's dismissal of that petition, the present petition does not present grounds that could not have been presented in the prior judicial proceeding. Nor has Yoon shown that the prior proceeding was inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of the BIA’s order. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Yoon’s second petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2); see Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 809-10 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We deny Yoon's motion to file a late reply brief.
     
      
      . Although Yoon argues that Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc), represented a change in controlling law, Femandez-Ruiz merely applied the Supreme Court's decision in Leocal. Thus, petitioner's arguments were available as soon as Leocal was decided and could have been presented in his prior petition for review.