Case Name: HAE JUNG CHUNG LEE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-09
Citations: 432 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 07-72815
Parties: HAE JUNG CHUNG LEE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
HAE JUNG CHUNG LEE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72815.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed May 9, 2011.
Alex C. Park, Esquire, Law Offices of Alex C. Park, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner.
Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hae Jung Chung Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("D") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
The agency properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Chung Lee's application for a U visa. See 8 C.F.R. § 214(c)(5)(h) (listing the application procedures for a U visa); Lee v. Holder, 599 F.3d 973, 975-76 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has sole jurisdiction over all U visa applications).
Chung Lee's due process contention is unpersuasive. Cf. Dielmann v. INS, 34 F.3d 851, 853 (9th Cir.1994) (finding unpersuasive a similar contention that Congress violated due process by delegating authority over visa petitions to the Attor ney General rather than the IJs or the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.