FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAN SOO CHEE; et al., No. 06-71952
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A072-343-669
A072-343-670
v. A072-343-671
A072-343-672
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Wan Soo Chee, Kum Nam Chee, Sung Ae Chee, and Bong Suk Chee,
natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
*
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).
removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition for review.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the government failed to establish
removability by clear and convincing evidence, because they conceded
removability. 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).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 06-71952