Youn Kyung Park v. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM ***

Park’s petition challenging the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen is controlled by Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir.2003). At the time the BIA set Park’s voluntary departure period, the controlling law was set out in Contreras-Aragon v. INS, 852 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc). We therefore remand so that the Board can “consider whether, in light of the fact that Contreras-Aragon was still on the books, [Park’s] period for voluntary departure should commence at a later time.” Zazueta-Carrillo, 322 F.3d at 1174 .

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in streamlining Park’s appeal because the IJ did not err, and the BIA would not have abused its discretion if it concluded that the issue presented here-whether a student violated the terms of her status by failing to attend school-is insubstantial.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that Park violated the terms of her nonimmigrant student status because the unrebutted evidence indicates that *181 Park did not attend the International College for English Studies (“International College”).

The IJ did not inappropriately shift the burden of proof to Park. She merely noted that Park…