Hyun Taek Yoo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HYUN TAEK YOO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71070
Agency No. A200-243-149
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Hyun Taek Yoo, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Lopez-Alvarado v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo due process
claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Yoo failed to
establish the requisite continuous physical presence, where Yoo’s application for
cancellation of removal and testimony show that he departed the United States for
a period of more than 90 days during the statutory period. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), (d)(2) (a departure in excess of 90 days breaks continuous
physical presence). Yoo’s contentions that the agency denied him a full and fair
hearing and applied incorrect legal standards are not supported by the record.
Accordingly, Yoo’s due process claims must fail. See Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (due process claims require
showing that proceedings were “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was
prevented from reasonably presenting his case” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-71070 2

-- 2 of 2 --