Se Young An, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-73538 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOV 01 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SE YOUNG AN; MI JUNG AN, a.k.a. Mi Jung Jin; EUI LEE AN; JOO LEE AN, No. 08-73538 Agency Nos. A096-062-395 A096-062-394 A096-062-396 A096-062-397 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Mi Jung An and family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s ( IJ ) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to * 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). continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioners seventh request for a continuance over a three-year period where petitioners eligibility for relief was speculative. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to continue where relief was not immediately available). The agency properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Mi Jung An s Form I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. See Matter of Marcal Neto, 25 I. & N. Dec. 169, 174 (BIA 2010) (the IJ and the BIA do not have jurisdiction over visa petitions); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(b), (n)(2). The agency properly concluded that petitioners were ineligible for adjustment of status. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner had not shown prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status where she failed to submit evidence of an approved I-140). Petitioners remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-73538
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
