NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2271
M AZ DA R AS AS Y, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 23- 769- 293) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A ndr ew A r thur Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay7, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: M ay26, 2010 ) OP I NI ON
P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerM azda R as as yi s a nat i ve of Thai l and and c i t i zen of L aos w ho pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ s ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r emoval . For th e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2 I. R as as yw as born t o L aot i an par ent s i n a r efuge e ca m p i n T hai l and i n 1977. H e and hi s fami l yent er ed the U ni t ed St at es as r efuge es i n 1979. I n 1981, he adj us t ed hi s s t atus t o thatof Law ful Per m anentR es i dent( “LP R ”) . R as as y ’ s m otheri s a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen, and he ha s s even s i bl i ngs , al l of w hom l i ve i n the U ni t ed St at es . R as as yi s a nonpr act i ci ng M or m on and nei therhe norhi s fami l yhas been pol i t i cal l yact i ve i n the U ni t ed St at es . H i s father , w ho has pas s ed aw ay , ai ded the U ni t ed St at es i n the V i etnam W arand b e c a m e a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n in 1 9 9 9 . I n 2003, R as as yw as convi ct ed of D i s tr i but i on of M or e than 100 G r ams of A ctual M e th a m p h e ta m in e in th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r t h e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f A rk a n s a s . H e w as i ni t i al l ys ent ence d t o 160 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , buti n 2005 hi s s ent ence w as r educe d t o 90 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I n February2008, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( “D H S”) fi l ed a N ot i ce t o A ppearchar gi ng R as as yas r emovabl e pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) forbei ng convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l onyand forbei ng convi ct ed of a n offe ns e r el at i ng t o the i l l i ci ttr aff i cki ng of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , and under8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , as a per s on w ho, atanyt i m e af t eradmi s s i on, w as c o n v ic te d o f

a v io la tio n o f

a n yla w o r r e g u la tio n re la tin g to a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . R as as yr epr es ent ed hi m s el f athi s r emoval pr ocee di ngs . H e admi t t ed thathe had been con vict ed o f t he d rug cha rge and that he had been sent enced t o 1 60 m on ths’A lth o u g h R a sa sy ’s s e n ten c e w a s re d u c e d to 9 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, th is 1 m akes no di ffe r ence t o the det erm i nat i on thathe w as r emovabl e as an aggr avat ed fe l on and i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval . See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( B ) ( s t at i ng thatan aggr avat ed fe l onyi ncl udes the cr i m e of i l l i ci ttr aff i cki ng i n a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , in c lu d in g a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e ); 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3 )(B ) (s tatin g th a t a p e tit io n e r is i nel i gi bl e forw i thhol di ng of r emoval i f he r ece i ved a s ent ence of m or e than fi ve y ear s for a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y ). 3 im p riso n m e n t. B a se d o n th e se a d m iss io n s, th e IJ d e ter m in e d th a t R a sa syw a s re m o v a b le 1
as char ged. R as as ythen fi l ed a mot i on forr el i ef unde rthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) bas ed on hi s as s ert i on thathe w as l i kel yt o be t or tur ed i f he
re tu rn e d to L a o s b e c a u s e h is f a th e r h a d b e e n a llie d w ith th e U n ite d S ta te s . T he I J deni ed R as as y ’ s C A T appl i cat i on, fi ndi ng thathe di d nots ubm i tevi dence
s uppor t i ng hi s cl ai m thathe w oul d be mi s tr eat ed due t o hi s father ’ s r ol e i n the w ar . T he I J cons i der ed the 2007 U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof St at e C ountryR eportforL aos , not i ng th a t, b yth e e n d o f

1 9 9 9 , m ore than 28 , 90 0 H m on g an d low l and L ao had vo l un t ari l y repatri at ed to L aos, 3, 5 0 0 f r o m Chi n a a n d th e r e s tf r o m Th a i l a n d . Th e Off i c e o f th e Uni t ed N at i ons H i gh C om m i s s i oner for R efuge es m oni t or ed r eturnees fora number of y ear s and re por t ed no evi dence of s y s t emat i c per s ecut i on ordi s cr i m i nat i on o f re tu rn e e s p e r s e . U N H C R c lo s e d its L a o s o f f ic e in th e e n d o f

2 0 0 1 . T he I J al s o r emar ked thatthe R eporti ndi cat ed thatr eturnees “no l ongerr ece i ve[] unus ual att ent i on fr om offi ci al s . ” The I J di d acknow l edge thatatl eas tone off i ci al w ho had
s erved i n the pr e- 1975 governm entw as i m pr i s oned, and thatther e w er e r eport s of pol i ce and s ecur i tyfor ces abus i ng pr i s oner s s us pect ed of a s s oci at i on w i th the ongoi ng in s u rg e n c y . T h e IJ f

u rt h e r n o te d th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e o f p e rs e c u tio n o f

M o rm o n s .4

A c c o rd in g ly , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t th e e v id e n c e d id n o t d e m o n stra te s y ste m a tic per s ecut i on of r eturnees t o L aos gener al l yorof r eturnees as s oci at ed w i th the pr i or g o v e rn m e n t. R as as yappea l ed t o the B I A , as s ert i ng thatthe I J i ncorr ect l yfound thathe had be en se n ten c e d to 1 6 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t an d th a t th e 2 0 0 7 C o u n tryR e p o rt a c tu a lly
s uppor t ed hi s cl ai m beca us e i ti ndi cat ed thatthe Laot i an governm enthad att acke d H m ong in s u rg e n ts . T he B I A di s m i s s ed R as as y ’ s appea l , fi ndi ng thatthe I J had made no err or s of l aw orfac t , and thatr atherthan meani ngful l yaddr es s i ng anys uch fi ndi ngs , R as as yr ai s ed a
new cl ai m forC A T pr ot ect i on bas ed on hi s purpor t ed H m ong ethni ci ty . T o the ext ent thatR as as ys oughta r emand, the B I A det erm i ned thathe had notes t abl i s hed, as r equi r ed, hi s pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i tyforC A T pr ot ect i on as he had s ubm i t t ed no new evi dence and h is re q u e s t w a s s u p p o rt e d o n ly b yc o n c lu s o ry a s s e rt io n s . R a sa syn o w p e tit io n s, p ro se , fo r re v iew o f th e B IA ’s f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. II B eca us e R as as yconce ded hi s r emovabi l i tyand does notchal l enge hi s des i gnat i on as an aggr avat ed fe l on, ourr evi ew of the B I A ’ s deni al of hi s cl ai m forr el i ef unde rthe CAT i s l i mi t e d t o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms o rq u e s t i o n s o f l a w. S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) . R as as ys eems t o ar gue thatthe B I A m ade i ncorr ectfac tual fi ndi ngs r egar di ng the tr eatm entr eturni ng L aot i ans and H m ong beca us e i tdi d notcons i derthe5

2 0 0 7 C o u n tryR e p o rt in its e n tirety . T o th e e x ten t th a t th is a rg u m e n t co u ld b e re a d to
ra ise a c laim o f

p ro c e d u ra l er ro r, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n in d ica tes th a t it f u llyc o n sid e re d th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd a n d “ g ra sp e d th e m o v a n t’s c laim s,” w h ich is all that is r eq u ir ed to d em o n str ate tha t i t fu lfi ll ed it s d u tyto “c o m p reh en d [] a n d ad d ress[ ]” R a s a s y ’s C A T c la im . S e e S e v o ia n v . A s h c ro f t, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 7 -7 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). R asa syraises n o o ther c o n sti tuti o n al claim s o r qu esti o n s o f law w ith resp ec t t o the B IA ’s d e c is io n a s to th e d is m is s a l o f h is a p p e a l o r d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to re m a n d . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e d e n yR a s a s y ’s p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .