You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Joo Yeon Park v. Gonzales

Citation: 135 F. App'x 85Docket: Nos. 03-74158, 03-74162 and 03-74164

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 16, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a petition for review by an individual and her sons challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals order, which affirmed an Immigration Judge's decision declaring them removable and denying their request for voluntary departure. The court asserted jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and denied the petitions. The petitioner argued her removal was unjust, attributing her failure to file a timely application for adjustment of status to fraud rather than negligence. However, the Immigration Judge, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(a), stated he lacked authority to review the INS's decision to initiate removal proceedings. Additionally, the petitioner's argument regarding dismissal of the proceedings was deemed waived due to the absence of a viable legal theory. The court also highlighted its lack of jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure as outlined in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f) and 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). The decision, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, is not intended for publication or citation, and the petition was ultimately denied.

Legal Issues Addressed

Jurisdiction over Voluntary Departure Requests

Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure requests.

Reasoning: Furthermore, the court confirmed it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's denial of voluntary departure requests under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f) and 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)

Application: The court has the authority to review the Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming the removal decision.

Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and ultimately denied the petitions.

Non-Citable Decision

Application: The decision is not intended for publication or citation in the circuit courts in accordance with local rules.

Reasoning: The petition was denied, and the decision is not intended for publication or citation in the circuit courts per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Reviewability of INS Decisions

Application: The Immigration Judge lacks authority to review the INS's decision to initiate removal proceedings.

Reasoning: The IJ, while sympathetic, concluded he lacked the authority to review the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) denial of her application, referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(a).

Waiver of Argument

Application: Failure to provide a viable theory for relief results in the waiver of the argument regarding dismissal of removal proceedings.

Reasoning: Park also raised concerns about whether the IJ erred in denying her request to dismiss the removal proceedings, but did not provide a viable theory for relief, leading the court to conclude this argument was waived.