Yong Joo Chung v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONG JOO CHUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-508
Agency No.
A097-352-876
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of an
Immigration Judge
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Yong Joo Chung, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions pro se for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming an asylum officer’s
negative reasonable fear determination, and denying his motion to continue. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
* 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).
FILED
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-508
denial of a continuance. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019). We
review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Because Chung does not contest the IJ’s dispositive determinations that he
did not demonstrate a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected
ground or torture with the consent or acquiescence of the government, we do not
address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013).
The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate due process in denying Chung’s
request for a continuance for lack of good cause where Chung’s case was
publicized in Korean news media prior to the proceedings before the IJ, and the IJ
accepted Chung’s evidence into the record. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant a
continuance for good cause shown); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th
Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to grant a continuance); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error required to prevail on a due process claim).
Chung’s contention that the IJ abused his discretion and violated due process
by not remanding his case to the asylum officer to allow him to introduce new
evidence fails because he has not shown error. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246; see
also Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 813 (9th Cir. 2018) (in reasonable fear
review hearings, an IJ conducts a de novo review and “may allow an alien to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-508
submit evidence to support his or her claim, [but] is not required to do so”)
(internal citation omitted).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate
issues. The supplemented motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --