Seung Min Hong, a.k.a. Seung Hong; JONG MI HONG, a.k.a. Jong Mi Kim; JAE YONG HONG 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 finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SEUNG MIN HONG, a.k.a. Seung Hong;
JONG MI HONG, a.k.a. Jong Mi Kim;
JAE YONG HONG,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73417
Agency Nos. A072-971-915
A072-971-916
A072-971-918
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Seung Min Hong and his wife and son, natives and citizens of South Korea,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

06-73417 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional and legal issues, Avila-
Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition
for review.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the government failed to establish
removability by clear and convincing evidence, because they conceded
removability. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008).
We also reject petitioners’ contention that the government should be
equitably estopped from ordering their removal. Although a government
employee, Leland Sustaire, issued petitioners’ fraudulent alien registration cards,
the record shows Seung Min Hong was not “ignorant of the true facts” when he
procured the cards, see id. at 1025, and “[i]n any event, estoppel against the
government is unavailable where petitioners have not lost any rights to which they
were entitled,” Sulit v. Schiltgen, 213 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 2000).
We find no defects amounting to a due process violation. See Shin, 547 F.3d
at 1024-25; Hong v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we deny the Hongs’ request to remand their case to the BIA for
consideration of their pending applications for adjustment of status because the
proper recourse is to file a motion to reopen with the BIA. See Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 896-97 (9th Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

-- 2 of 3 --

06-73417 3
The government’s motion to strike portions of petitioners’ supplemental
reply brief is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --