9th Circuit dismisses man’s appeal from being extradited to S. Korea

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has dismissed the appeal of Korean businessman Jae Boong Kim, who was found by the federal court to be extraditable.

The Ninth Circuit clerk of court dismissed Kim’s appeal after he failed to file an opening brief in the case, as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Ninth Circuit directed Kim’s lawyer, Stephen Woodruff, to notify immediately his client about the case’s dismissal.

Woodruff said he would be asking the Ninth Circuit to recall the mandate and reinstate the appeal and he expects that they will agree.

“This is a ministerial duty of the 9th Circuit clerk; however, the clerk was not aware of special circumstances that excuse the failure,” Woodruff said.

He pointed out that the clerk was unaware of the Internet disruption that the CNMI experienced for nearly three weeks, which made it impossible to do any online legal research or file anything with the court.

Woodruff said there are also other special circumstances involved in the case that he cannot discuss publicly at this point.

Federal agents arrested Kim on Saipan on May 17, 2013, based on two outstanding arrest warrants in South Korea for allegedly defrauding two women of about 530.8 million won (about $477,632) and defrauding some Korean nurses by falsely promising them jobs in Guam.

In October and November 2013, U.S. District Court for NMI Chief Judge Ramona Manglona issued a certification of extraditability for Kim in connection with the two cases.

Kim applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The federal court denied the petition. He appealed the denial.

In his appeal, Kim applied for a stay of extradition pending appeal in May 2014. The Ninth Circuit granted the request.

In November 2014, Kim asked the Ninth Circuit for release pending his appeal. The Ninth Circuit denied the motion, but allowed him to present the motion in the district court.

Kim then filed in federal court a motion for his release. In his motion, Kim, through Woodruff, asserted that he is entitled to release because his continued detention violates a federal statute that limits the period during which he may be detained to two months and special circumstances.

Woodruff maintained that the legal proceedings in this case have been extraordinarily protracted, and that the delay cannot be attributed to him.