Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02007/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Vong Xiong
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2007

___________

Vong Xiong, * 

* 

Petitioner, * 

* Petition for Review of a 

v. * Final Decision of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * 

of the United States of America, * 

* 

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2007

Filed: April 12, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Vong Xiong, a citizen of Laos, petitions for review of a final order of removal

by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the decision of the

immigration judge (IJ) denying Xiong's applications for withholding of removal and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons discussed below,

we deny Xiong's petition.

Appellate Case: 06-2007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2007 Entry ID: 3298096
1

The INS additionally charged Xiong with being removable for having been

convicted of a crime of child abuse; however, INS subsequently withdrew that charge.

-2-

I. Background

Xiong, a 29-year-old male native and citizen of Laos, entered the United States

on June 18, 1993, as a refugee. He subsequently adjusted his status to that of a lawful

permanent resident pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a). 

On October 22, 1997, Xiong was convicted in state court of third-degree

criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minnesota law. At the time of the sexual

assault, the victim was 14 years old. The state court sentenced Xiong to 60 days in a

workhouse and 5 years probation. 

As a result of his conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

commenced removal proceedings against Xiong, charging him with being removable

for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and an aggravated

felony.1

 In response to the charges, Xiong filed a motion to terminate the removal

proceedings, arguing that he was not removable from the United States because he

continued to hold the refugee status granted to him in June 1993 and did not meet the

requirements for termination of refugee status as outlined in the United Nations

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The IJ, however, denied Xiong's

motion. 

The IJ found Xiong removable as both an aggravated felon and an alien

convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the IJ found that Xiong

committed an aggravated felony, he was ineligible for asylum. Therefore, Xiong

applied only for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. The INS asserted

that Xiong was ineligible for these forms of relief because he had been convicted of

a "particularly serious crime" under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). 

Appellate Case: 06-2007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2007 Entry ID: 3298096
2

Initially, when the IJ asked Xiong whether there was an objection to "Exhibit

No. 2," which contained the criminal complaint, Xiong's counsel responded, "Just a

minute, Your Honor. No, no objection." Thereafter, at the merits hearing on Xiong's

application for withholding and protection under CAT, Xiong's counsel objected to

the admission of the criminal complaint. In response, the IJ stated that it had already

been received into the record and that it would remain in the record because it formed

the basis for Xiong's state conviction. 

-3-

At the removal hearing, Xiong testified that his family left Laos and came to the

United States when he was approximately 16 years old because of poverty and

because his elders aided America in the Vietnam War. According to Xiong, his father,

his father's brothers, his grandfather, and his brother were involved in the war. Xiong

claimed a fear, in part, because of the closeness of his "uncle" Vang Xiong to General

Vang Pao. According to Xiong, he feared returning to Laos because his family's

involvement in the war might lead to his being killed, even though he was not

personally involved in the war. 

The IJ found Xiong's testimony concerning his father's involvement in the war

to be "generally credible, but meager." Additionally, the IJ determined that Xiong's

claim that he would be targeted because of his relation to Vang Xiong was undercut

by Vang Xiong's admission that he was only a distant relative to Xiong, not the

brother of Xiong's father. Therefore, the IJ concluded that the testimony of Xiong and

his witnesses was insufficient to meet the burden of proof on his claims for relief. 

The IJ also determined that Xiong's state conviction constituted a "particularly

serious crime," disqualifying him for withholding of removal. While acknowledging

that Xiong was not convicted under a statute section involving force or coercion, the

IJ relied on the facts and circumstances of the offense as set forth in the criminal

complaint.2

 In addition, the IJ had previously admitted, over Xiong's objection, the

presentence report (PSR) from the state conviction, which set forth both Xiong and

the victim's version of the circumstances underlying Xiong's conviction.

Appellate Case: 06-2007 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2007 Entry ID: 3298096
-4-

After determining that Xiong was ineligible for withholding of removal based

on his commission of a "particularly serious crime," the IJ made an alternative ruling.

The IJ found that even if Xiong was eligible for such relief, he failed to show that he

had been persecuted in the past and that it was more likely than not that he would be

persecuted in the future. The IJ recounted the country information contained in the

Department of State's September 1998 report "Laos—Profile of Asylum Claims and

Country Conditions." This report noted that the government of Laos had formally

stated that it would accept all overseas Laotians except for a "small number of high

officials of the former Royal Lao government and those active in insurgency after

1975." In addition, the report stated that "[o]ver 27,000 [Laotians] had been

repatriated since 1988" under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

and that "[a]s many as 30,000 others are estimated to have returned without official

involvement." Finally, the report noted that "a Laos citizen generally can return to

Laos without fear of retribution" unless the citizen held high status in the former

government or was closely associated with General Pao. The IJ reiterated its finding

that Xiong's testimony was "general and meager" regarding his family's involvement

in the war and that Vang Xiong, who was allegedly "close" to General Pao, was a

distant blood relative to Xiong, not his uncle. Because Xiong failed to satisfy his

burden of proof as to withholding of removal, the IJ also denied his application for

relief under CAT. 

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision and supplemented the opinion.

As to Xiong's argument that the IJ should have terminated the removal proceedings

because his refugee status was never revoked, the BIA relied on In re Smriko, 23 I&N

Dec. 836 (BIA 2005), in which the BIA determined that refugees who entered the

United States and subsequently adjusted their status to permanent lawful residents

were subject to removal on the basis of their subsequent criminal convictions without

first terminating their refugee status. 

Appellate Case: 06-2007 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2007 Entry ID: 3298096
3

"Whether an alien who entered the country as a refugee and subsequently

acquired LPR status may be placed in removal proceedings even though his refugee

status was never terminated under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4), is a question of law" within

the jurisdiction of this court on petition for review. Romanishyn v. Atty. Gen. of the

United States, 455 F.3d 175, 180 (3d Cir. 2006). 

-5-

The BIA then addressed the IJ's admission of the criminal complaint and the

PSR into evidence. The BIA noted Xiong's failure to initially object to the admission

of the criminal complaint. Additionally, the BIA found that Xiong failed to establish

that consideration of the PSR was "fundamentally unfair." Thus, the BIA concurred

with the IJ's determination that Xiong was not eligible for withholding of removal and

protection under CAT because he committed a "particularly serious crime." 

Finally, the BIA agreed with the IJ's conclusion that Xiong failed to establish

that it is more likely than not that he would either be persecuted or tortured upon his

return to Laos. 

II. Discussion

Xiong petitions for review, arguing that (1) this court must dismiss the removal

proceeding against him because, as a refugee, he cannot be placed in removal

proceedings unless his refugee status is terminated or until an immigration official has

inspected him and deemed him inadmissible; (2) both the BIA and the IJ violated his

due process rights in deciding that his conviction for third-degree criminal sexual

conduct constituted a "particularly serious crime" because they relied upon the

criminal complaint and the PSR; and (3) because the IJ and the BIA concluded that

he committed a "particularly serious crime," they gave "short shrift" to his claims for

withholding of removal.

A. Termination of Removal Proceedings

Xiong's first argument—that we must dismiss removal proceedings against him

because his refugee status was never terminated—is without merit.3

Appellate Case: 06-2007 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/12/2007 Entry ID: 3298096
-6-

The BIA, the Third Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit have all held that an alien who

enters the United States as a refugee, subsequently adjusts his status to a permanent

lawful resident, and is thereafter convicted of an aggravated felony or a crime of moral

turpitude may be placed in removal proceedings, even though his refugee status was

never terminated. Smriko, 23 I&N Dec. at 837 ("[A]n alien who has been admitted as

a refugee and has adjusted his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident may

be placed in removal proceedings for acts or conduct amounting to grounds for

removal under section 237(a) of the Act."); Romanishyn, 455 F.3d at 185 ("We thus

hold that an alien who . . . entered the United States as a refugee pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1157, subsequently adjusted his status to become an LPR pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1159(a), and then was convicted of an aggravated felony and/or two or more crimes

of moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal conduct, may be

placed into removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and

1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), though his refugee status was never terminated pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1157(c)(4)"); Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) ("We join the

Third Circuit in concluding that an alien who arrives in the United States as a refugee

may be removed even if refugee status has never been terminated pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1157(c)(4)."). 

Therefore, given the thorough opinions authored by the BIA and our sister

circuits, and seeing no reason to deviate from such opinions, we reject Xiong's

argument. 

B. Jurisdiction To Review Finding of Ineligibility 

for Withholding of Removal 

As to Xiong's argument that the IJ and BIA violated his constitutional right to

due process by admitting and considering the criminal complaint and the PSR in

determining that Xiong committed a "particularly serious crime," the government

asserts that this court need not reach this legal claim because the IJ and the BIA made

an alterative dispositive finding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review. We agree.

Appellate Case: 06-2007 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/12/2007 Entry ID: 3298096
-7-

This court lacks jurisdiction to review "any final order of removal against an

alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in

section . . . 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) [of 8 U.S.C.]. . . ." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Therefore,

we do not have jurisdiction to review a final order against an alien who was found

removable for having committed an "aggravated felony." See id. However, this court

retains jurisdiction to review "constitutional claims or questions of law." 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(2)(D). 

Xiong raises a constitutional claim that the IJ and the BIA violated his due

process rights in concluding that he was ineligible for withholding of removal because

he committed a "particularly serious crime." However, the IJ and BIA decision rested

on alternative grounds. Xiong fails to raise a colorable constitutional or legal

challenge to the IJ and BIA's alternative finding that, even if he were eligible for

withholding of removal, he failed to meet his burden of proof for withholding of

removal. 

Therefore, even if we considered and ruled on Xiong's constitutional claim,

such a ruling would be merely advisory, as we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ and

the BIA's alternative finding. Xiong failed to show that he had been persecuted in the

past or that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted in the future based

on a protected ground. See Hanan v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 834, 836–37 (8th Cir. 2006)

(holding that, under REAL ID Act, court lacked jurisdiction over habeas claim

brought by alien, who was member of Pashtun ethnic group and citizen of

Afghanistan, alleging that the BIA wrongly denied him relief under CAT, inasmuch

as claim came down to challenges to IJ's factual determination that it was not likely

that current government in Afghanistan would seek to torture alien if he was returned,

and thus did not depend upon any constitutional issue or question of law). 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we deny Xiong's petition for review. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2007 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/12/2007 Entry ID: 3298096