FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAE JUNG CHUNG LEE, No. 07-72815
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-266-344
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Hae Jung Chung Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations.
*
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).
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Chung
Lee’s application for a U visa. See 8 C.F.R. § 214(c)(5)(ii) (listing the application
procedures for a U visa); Lee v. Holder, 599 F.3d 973, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has sole jurisdiction over all U
visa applications).
Chung Lee’s due process contention is unpersuasive. Cf. Dielman v. INS, 34
F.3d 851, 853 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding unpersuasive a similar contention that
Congress violated due process by delegating authority over visa petitions to the
Attorney General rather than the IJs or the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-72815