The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-73380•Kyu O. Oh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
07-73380Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSep 29, 2010
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KYU O. OH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73380
Agency No. A039-765-209
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kyu O. Oh, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
07-73380 2
a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005),
and de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107
(9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oh’s motion to remand
because she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (“[A]ny period of continuous residence . . . in the
United States shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien has committed an offense
referred to in [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)].”); Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th
Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is
“arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).
Because Oh filed her motion to remand “in place of” her appeals brief, the
BIA did not err in concluding that she abandoned her appeal. See Toquero v. INS,
956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1992).
Oh’s remaining contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.