FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAK KIM; et al., Nos. 06-72370
06-74024
Petitioners,
Agency Nos. A072-009-538
v. A075-116-353
A075-116-354
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, A075-116-355
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Hak Kim, Kyung Ja Kim, Jee Sun
Kim, and Jay Hyok Kim, natives and citizens of the Republic of Korea, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying their motion 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).
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
Petitioners’ challenge to the agency’s finding of removability fails because
they conceded they were removable as charged in immigration court. See Young
Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]here the alien
concedes removability, the government’s burden in this regard is satisfied.”)
(citation and quotation omitted).
Petitioners’ contention that the government should be equitably estopped
from ordering their removal is unavailing. See Sulit v. Schiltgen, 213 F.3d 449,
454 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[E]stoppel against the government is unavailable where
petitioners have not lost any rights to which they were entitled.”); cf. Salgado-Diaz
v. Gonzalez, 395 F.3d 1158, 1165-68 (9th Cir. 2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because an immigrant visa was not immediately available to Kyung Ja Kim.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (stating that “an immigrant visa [must be] immediately
available to the alien at the time the application [for adjustment of status] is filed”).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 06-72370