Kyu Pyo Han 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KYU PYO HAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71029
Agency No. A098-761-436
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Kyu Pyo Han, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-71029
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due process
violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
petition for review.
Although Han contends he has a well-founded fear of persecution, he does
not challenge the agency’s dispositive findings that he is statutorily ineligible for
asylum due to his untimely application and aggravated felony conviction. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Accordingly,
Han’s asylum claim fails.
Further, although Han contends he established a clear probability of
persecution by loan sharks in South Korea, he does not challenge the agency’s
dispositive finding that he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. See id.
Accordingly, Han’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, Han’s contention that the IJ and BIA failed to consider all of the
evidence before them is belied by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --