SUNG KIM V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71554 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUNG ILL KIM; JUNG SUK KIM, a.k.a. Jung Suk Chun; YOUNG WOO KIM, No. 11-71554 Agency Nos. A075-624-413 A075-624-414 A075-624-415 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Sung Ill Kim and family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse * 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). of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen is time- and number-barred and that they do not qualify for equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See MejiaHernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioners remaining contentions are rejected. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-71554

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.