Wonsun Suh v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General

* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WONSUN SUH; HAEHWA SUH;
SEUNGMI SUH, a.k.a. Judy Mi Suh;
SEUNGEUN SUH, a.k.a. Seung Fun Seo;
SEUNGCHAN SUH, a.k.a. Seung Chan
Seo; SEUNGYUN SUH, a.k.a. Seung Yun
Suh,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72984
Agency Nos. A072-970-598
A072-970-599
A072-970-600
A072-970-601
A072-970-602
A072-970-603
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Wonsun Suh, Haehwa Suh, Seungmi Suh, Seungeun Suh, Seungchan Suh,
and Seungyun Suh (together, “the Suhs”), all natives and citizens of South Korea,
petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
ordering their removal. The Suhs number among several individuals identified by
the government as having allegedly received their lawful permanent resident
(“LPR”) status through the fraudulent scheme of Leland Sustaire, a former
Supervisory Adjudications Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
We deny the petition for review. First, substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s finding of removability by clear and convincing evidence. See
Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).
Second, the BIA’s refusal to consider the Suhs’ green cards as “immigrant
visas” for the purpose of seeking a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. §
1184(k) does not violate equal protection. Rather, the government has proffered
“facially legitimate and bona fide reason[s]” for why Congress would treat LPRs,
like the Suhs, who have adjusted status within the United States, differently from
individuals holding immigrant visas and seeking admission from abroad. See
Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Third, because the Suhs did not raise their equitable estoppel claim in their
opening brief, we deem it waived and decline to address it on the merits. See
Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 1998).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --