Chang Young Jung 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CHANG YOUNG JUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75052
Agency No. A079-769-300
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Chang Young Jung, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-
FILED
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75052 2
Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) denial of Jung’s U visa application. See Elbez v.
INS, 767 F.2d 1313, 1314 (9th Cir. 1985) (visa petition process is collateral to a
deportation order and must be raised initially in the district court).
The BIA and the IJ properly determined that they lacked jurisdiction to
consider Jung’s application for a U visa. See Lee v. Holder, 599 F.3d 973, 975-76
(9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (USCIS has sole jurisdiction over all U visa
applications). Therefore, Jung’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail
on a due process claim).
Jung’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --