Lee Soon Park v. Holder , 371 F. App'x 715 ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LEE SOON PARK; YUN JA PARK; No. 06-71951
SOON YONG PARK; KYU CHUL
PARK, Agency Nos. A072-972-500
A072-972-501
Petitioners, A072-972-502
A072-972-503
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lee Soon Park, Yun Ja Park, Soon Yong Park, and Kyu Chul Park (together,
“the Parks”), all natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ordering their removal.
The Parks number among several individuals identified by the government as
having allegedly received their lawful permanent residence status through the
fraudulent scheme of Leland Sustaire, a former Supervisory Adjudications Officer
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
We deny the petition for review. The Parks’ challenge to the finding of
removability fails because they conceded that they were removable as charged in
immigration court. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c); Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547
F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that where the non-citizen concedes
removability, “‘the government’s burden in this regard is satisfied.’” (quoting
Estrada v. INS, 775 F.2d 1018, 1020 (9th Cir. 1985))), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct.
2799 (2009).
We also reject the Parks’ argument that we should equitably estop their
removal in light of Sustaire’s criminal wrongdoing. Because “the government is
not bound by the unauthorized acts of its agents,” the Parks cannot show
“affirmative misconduct going beyond mere negligence” on the part of the
government to warrant estoppel. Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707 (9th
2
Cir. 1989) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Young Sun Shin, 547
F.3d at 1022 (holding that “the government cannot be saddled with the felonious,
unauthorized issuance of residency documentation by a thieving employee”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3