Yoon Ho Kim 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YOON HO KIM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72419
Agency No. A070-971-332
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yoon Ho Kim, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations,
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72419 2
Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the
petition for review.
We reject Kim’s contention that the government should be equitably
estopped from ordering his removal. Because “the government is not bound by the
unauthorized acts of its agents,” Kim cannot show “affirmative misconduct going
beyond mere negligence” on the part of the government to warrant estoppel.
Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1022 (9th Cir.
2008) (“[T]he government cannot be saddled with the felonious, unauthorized
issuance of residency documentation by a thieving employee.”).
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --