Jae Hoon Yoo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAE HOON YOO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70061
Agency No. A096-068-722
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jae Hoon Yoo, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and granting voluntary
departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
* 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
MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70061
constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err or violate due process in taking Yoo’s pleadings
immediately following service of the amended charges, where the IJ offered Yoo a
continuance of 10 days, and he waived it. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(e) (IJ must
advise the alien that he may be given a “reasonable continuance” to respond to the
additional factual allegations and charges); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process
claim).
Yoo’s pleadings were a binding judicial admission, where Yoo alleges no
egregious circumstances, and the record shows that Yoo pleaded through his
attorney, acting in his official capacity, at a formal hearing on the record, in
response to distinct questions from the IJ, for the purpose of obtaining voluntary
departure. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 830 (9th Cir. 2011)
(absent egregious circumstances, an attorney’s admission or concession is binding
on an alien when the admission is distinct, formal, and made by an attorney in their
professional capacity, as a tactical decision).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70061
Accordingly, the agency did not err in sustaining the removability charge.
See Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 410-411 (9th Cir. 2011) (an IJ has
authority to sustain the charges on the basis of the alien’s admissions); see also
8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --