Taek Yoon v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAEK SANG YOON, a.k.a. Samuel S. No. 11-73367
Yoon, a.k.a. Teak Sang Yoon, a.k.a. Teak
Sang Yoonn, Agency No. A042-589-267
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Taek Sang Yoon, a native and citizen of Korea, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder, 697
F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Yoon’s 1999 conviction for kidnapping under California Penal Code
§ 207(a) for which he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment is categorically an
aggravated felony crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) that renders
him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See id. at 1133 (“[A]n
ordinary kidnapping under [California Penal Code] § 207(a) is a crime of violence
because it results in a substantial risk of force.”); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675
F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (holding that a petitioner’s
pleading-stage admissions and concessions may be sufficient to establish
removability). This 1999 conviction is final for immigration purposes. See Planes
v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2011).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Yoon’s contentions regarding
his additional conviction and the remaining grounds of removability.
Although Yoon raises numerous due process contentions regarding his
removal proceedings, he fails to establish a due process error or prejudice. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding petitioner must
demonstrate error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
2 11-73367
To the extent Yoon seeks review of the agency’s denial of bond, we lack
jurisdiction to review this decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Yoon’s contention regarding the threats of
harm from Korean gangsters if he were to return to Korea because he failed to raise
this issue before the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73367