FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOUNG PYO KIM, No. 05-71233
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-214-117
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Young Pyo Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance and ordering him
removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law, Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.
2011), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ properly found Kim removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B)
because he remained in the United States after the expiration of his business visitor
visa. Contrary to Kim’s contention, his filing of an application for adjustment of
status did not render his continued presence lawful. See id. at 1102-03 (filing an
adjustment application does not legalize an alien’s presence or confer any status).
It follows that the initiation of removal proceedings against Kim did not violate his
right to due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to show a due process violation).
Kim contends that the IJ abused her discretion and violated due process by
denying his request for a continuance pending adjudication of the I-130 immigrant
visa petition filed on his behalf. The government, however, has submitted a status
report stating that Kim’s visa petition has been denied. We must therefore dismiss
this portion of the petition for review as moot. See Pedroza-Padilla v. Gonzales,
486 F.3d 1362, 1364 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 05-71233