Sae Joon Kim v. Holder , 371 F. App'x 757 ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SAE JOON KIM, aka Kim Sae J., No. 06-72725
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-459-936
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
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.
Sae Joon Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ordering his removal.
Kim is one of several individuals identified by the government as having allegedly
*
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).
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. Kim’s challenge to the finding of
removability fails because he conceded that he was 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 Kim’s argument that we should equitably estop his removal
in light of Sustaire’s criminal wrongdoing. Because “the government is not bound
by the unauthorized acts of its agents,” Kim 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 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.
2