Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vincent ASEERVATHAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73666.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 2012.
    Submission Deferred Oct. 17, 2012.
    Resubmitted Sept. 5, 2013.
    Filed Sept. 10, 2013.
    Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Esquire, Law Office of Visuvanathan Rudrakumar-an, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Aaron R. Petty, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Vincent Aseervatham petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Aseervatham provided material support to a terrorist organization and is therefore ineligible for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). Aseervat-ham provided computer support for the Liberation Tiger Tamil Eelam, a designated terrorist organization. Communications support is among the examples given in the statute of prohibited support activities. Id. Aseervatham’s claim that the statute does not apply because he acted under duress is foreclosed by Annachamy v. Holder, 733 F.3d 254, 266-67, 2013 WL 4405687, at *9 (9th Cir. July 3, 2012).

Aseervatham’s departure from the United States has rendered moot his claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. 8 CFR §§ 1241.7,1208.16(f).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . This case is hereby resubmitted for decision. Petitioner’s motion for judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996). Respondent’s motion to exceed the word limit for the letter brief ordered by this Court is denied as moot. See Ninth Cir. R. 32-3(1).