Court Opinion

ID: 9408528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 22:02:17.045336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.426848
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHANG SOO LEE,                                  No.    20-71791

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-953-153

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted July 10, 2023**
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: SANCHEZ and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District
Judge.

      Chang Soo Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
            The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Mr. Lee’s application for cancellation of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Mr. Lee, who was represented by counsel,

did not challenge the IJ’s dispositive adverse moral character determination before

the BIA. Because he failed to exhaust that issue, we are barred from reviewing it.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

      We need not reach Mr. Lee’s arguments related to hardship. Even if the

agency made an error that prejudiced Mr. Lee’s ability to prove hardship, curing

that error would not change the outcome of the proceedings given the adverse

moral character determination. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095

(9th Cir. 2000).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         2