N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SE UN JEUN, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . Nos. 09-70191 a nd 09-73094 Age n c y No. A046-485-508
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe t ition for R e v ie w of Orde rs of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C OGAN, Distric t Judge
. ** Se Un Je un, a

c itiz e n of South Kore a , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision upholding a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision finding Je

un re m ova

b le for a ssisting thre e Kore an a lie ns in ille ga lly



# FIL ED FEB 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble B rian M . C oga

n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion.e nte ring the Unite d State s in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(6)(E). Je un a lso pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to re c onside r. Ha ving pre v iously

c onsolida

te d the two pe titions, we

now de ny

both. The B IA’ s re m ova

bility de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Sanc he z v. Holde r, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (9th C ir. 2012). W e se e no e rror in the B IA’ s finding tha

t Je un’ s te stim ony

wa s im pla usible a s c om

pa re d to the sta te m e nts of thethre e Kore an a lie ns a nd the im m igration inspe c tor. Nor did the B IA a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Je un’ s m otion to re c onside r. For the m ost pa

rt, Je un m e re ly

re pe ate d a

rgum e nts from

his a ppe a l of the IJ’ s de c ision, whic h is a

n ina d e quate ba sis for re c onside ra tion. Se e Soc op-Gonz a le z v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th C i r. 2001). Additiona l ly , Je un ra ise d

the
argum e nt tha

t his sta t e m e n t s should ha

v e be e n suppre sse d pursua nt to de R odrigue z -Ec he ve rria

v. M uka se y , 534 F.3d 1047 (9th C ir. 2008), for thefirst tim e in his m o tion to re c onside r, whe n he c ould ha ve ra ise d this a rgum e nt be fore the B IA issue d its de c ision dism issing Jeun’ s a

ppe a l. Furthe rm ore , the re is no indic ation in the re c ord or in Je un’ s brie f that Je un wa s “ arre s te d without wa rrant
and pla c e d in form a l proc e e d ings” suc h tha t he should ha

ve be e n a dvise d

of his rights pursua

nt to 8 C .F.R . § 287.3(c ). In light of the se fa c ts, the B IA did not a c t

2“ arbitra

rily , irrationa lly , or c ontra ry to la w” in de ny ing Je un’ s m otion to
re c o nside r. C ano-M e rida v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th C ir. 2002). Fina lly , Je un a

rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s de p ortation of Ye ol Hong, oneof the t hre e Kore an a lie ns, viola

t e d his c onstitutiona

l rights pursua

nt to our de c ision in Unite d State s v. Le a l-De l C arm e n, 697 F.3d 964 (9th C ir. 2012). W e ne e d not de te rm i ne whe t

h e r Le a l -De l C a

rm e n a pplie s in im

m igration proc e e dings, a s oppose d to c rim ina l proc e e dings like Le a l-De l C arm e n, a s the re c ord c onta ins no indic ation tha

t Hong would ha

ve be e n a favora ble witne ss to Je un , tha

t the gove rnm e nt a c t e d in ba d fa ith in deporting Hong, or tha t Hong’ s de porta

tion pre j udic e d Je un. Id. a

t 969-70. PE T IT IO NS DE N IE D .

3