NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOOK HEE JUNG, AKA Xianghua Shen, No. 14-73711
Petitioner, Agency No. A204-836-863
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FABER,*** District
Judge.
Sook Hee Jung, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying adjustment of status. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
We review questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual determinations
for substantial evidence. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.
2010). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jung did not
meet her burden of demonstrating that she was “waved” into the United States at a
port of entry and, therefore, “inspected and admitted” for the purpose of
adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); Matter of Quilantan, 25 I & N Dec. 285,
286, 293 (BIA 2010). There were inconsistencies between Jung’s testimony and
immigration documents submitted on her behalf. Jung did not explain those
inconsistencies nor did she provide sufficient documentation to corroborate her
testimony that her entry was procedurally regular for purposes of adjustment of
status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of
establishing eligibility for relief from removal).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jung’s unexhausted contentions that the IJ
did not provide her sufficient notice and opportunity to produce corroborative
evidence or to explain its unavailability and that the IJ failed to provide specific
and cogent reasons for rejecting her explanations regarding the inconsistencies
between her testimony and the documentary evidence. See Tijani v. Holder, 628
2 14-73711
F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not
presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73711