The Honor able Solomon Oliver, Jr., United St ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. Meline Va

ng ’s first name also appe ars in the r ecor d with the alternative spelling 1 “Mela

nie”. F ile Nam e: 07a0371n.06

F iled: May 31, 2007
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION No. 06-3600 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

GUY VA NG; CAR OL IN E V ANG; ME LI NE VAN G; GENE VI EV E C HO NG FOUNG, Pe tit ion e rs , ON P ETIT ION F OR REVIEW FROM A F I

NAL ORDER OF v. THE B OARD OF I MMI GRATI ON O F A P P E A LS AL BER TO R . G ON Z AL ES , AT TOR NE Y G EN ER

AL , OP IN ION Respondent
.

Before: K

EITH and COL E, Circuit Judges; and O LIVER, District Judge. * SOL OMON OLIVER, JR., District Judge: Petitioners Guy Vang , Caroline Vang , Meline Vang , and Ge nevieve Chong F oung (tog ether , the “Va ng s” or “ Petitione rs ”) a

ppeal the f

inal 1 administrative orde r of the B oard of I mmigration of Appea ls (“B I A”) , aff irmin g the I mmigration J udg e’s de cision to deny

Petitioners’ application for asylum and withholding of r emoval under theMr. Vangwas c onsidered the lead a pplicant for r elief a

nd protec tion from 2 remova l, while his wife and two minor da ug hters we re c onsidered to be derivative ap p l i ca n t s wh o s e c l ai m s we re d ep en d en to nt h o s e o f M r. Va n g. -2- I mmi g ratio n a

nd Natio na lity

Ac t ( “ I NA ” ) a nd re lie f u nd e r t he Un ite d N a tio ns Con ve nti on Ag a ins t Torture (“CAT” ). F or the re asons stated be low, we AF F IRM the dec ision of the BIA. I. L e a d Pe tit ion e r Guy

Va ng(“ Mr . Vang ” ) wa s b or

n in L a os in 1 96 2. Me mbe rs of his fa mil y 2

wo rk e d f o r t h e C I A f

i g h t i n g a g a i n s t c o m m u n i s m . W h e n c o m m u n i s t s t o o k o v e r t h e c o u n tr y , h is pare nts and ten brother s and sisters attempted to flee to Thailand, but only Mr. Vangmade it. Mr. Va ngsp e nt f

our y e ars in a

re fu g e e c a mp i n T ha ila

nd be fo re he wa s sp on so re d b y a no n- pr of it
o rga n i z at i o nat t h e a ge o f s i x t ee nan d m o v edt o a U n i t edNa t i o n s re fu gee ca mp i n Fr an ce . M r. Va n g, believing that his f

amily had been killed, w ent to school, worked, r ented a n apar tment, owned a c ar, and eve ntually

marrie d another

L aotion ref

ug ee, Genevie ne Chong Foung , in Fra nce. Mr . Vangand his wife bec ame F renc h citizens, were issued F renc h passports, and ha d two children in F ranc e. Mr. Vanglived in F ranc e for approximately eleve n y ear s befor e lear ning that his family

was alive and ha d been g rante d ref ug ee status in the U nited States. The Va ng s went to the United States Embassy in Fra nce to obtain a

visitor visa to the United S tates, but wer e allege dly advised that they
we re el i gi b l e t o en t er

t o t h e U n i t edS t at es b y

s i mp l y s i gn i n g a d o cu m en t at t h e ai rp o rt
. T h e V an gs signe d the documents at the airport, but contend that they wer e not a war e that they wer e par

ticipating in the Visa Waiver Pilot Progra m (“VWPP”). Th e VWPP a llo ws a lie ns fr om p art ici pat in g c ountr ie s to e nte r t he Un ite d St a te s w ith ou t a visa. Admission under the VWPP i s conting ent on seve ral fa ctors, including that the alien is see king
e ntr y a s a tou ri st f or nin e ty da y s o r l e ss. 8 U .S. C. § 11 87 (a )( 1) . AVWPP a pp lic ant i s r e qu ir e d to-3-

re a d a nd sig n th e wa ive r. As a

c on dit ion of re c e ivi ng a wa ive r, a lie ns g ra nte d en tr y un de r t he VWPP
mus t wa ive the ri g ht to c on te st su bs e qu e nt re mov a l a c tio ns , e xce pt wh e n s e e kin g a sylum . 8 U. S.C. § 1 18 7( b) (2 ). Th e VWPP I nf or ma tio n Fo rm s sp e c if

ic a lly a dv ise the a lie n th a t, a s a

c on dit ion of his expedited a dmission, he must “ [w] aive all rig hts of revie w or appe al of a dmissibi lity deter mination made by an I mmigration Office r, and a ll rights to contest a ction in deportation, except for asylum.” (J.A. 252.) The Va ng s entere d the United States on Au gust 16, 1989. Under the V WP P they wer e per m i t t ed t o stay

for only ninety day s; however , the Vang s remaine d bey ond the time presc ribed. Mr. Vangapplied for

asylum and wi t h h o l d i n g of depor tation with the former

I mmigration and Natura liz ation S er vice ( “I NS”), now the Depa

rtment of Homela

nd Security

(“D HS”), on July

27, 1990. Although he attended an interview and was told a decision would be sent to him, no decision was sent. Acc ording to Petiti oners, the V ang s were resc heduled f or anothe r i nterview in November of 2000. The Va

ng s alleg e that they

wer e then told, for the f

irst time since initiating their a pplication for a sy lum eleven y ear s prior, that t hey wer e beingplace d in asy lum-only proce eding s, rather

than
a dmi nis tr a tiv e a sylum

re vie w. On or a

bo ut De c e mbe r 12, 20 00 , the I NS re fe rr e d the Va

ng s’ c a se to an I mmigration J udg e for consideration. The g overnme nt alleg ed the Va ng s had sig ned wr itten waiver s of the rig ht to defe nd ag ainst Removal/Deportation Proc eeding s for a ny rea son other than asylum when they

enter ed the United States under the VWPP . Mr. Vangdid not remember signing any thing be fore enter ing the United States. The Va ng s filed a r equest to obtain copies of the signe d
wa ive rs on

Janu ary 12 , 2 00 1. Th e Vang s a lso fi le d a Mo tio n to Te rm inate the a sylum -o nly proce eding s so that the Vang s could be placed in full remova l proce eding s if the waive rs wer e notGene ral Va ng Pao’s name is mistakenly spelled “V angPowell” in portions of the 3 re c or d a

nd br ie fs
. -4- produce d. The gove rnment t ook over one y ear to respond with copies of the s igne d VWPP waiver forms. The Immigration J udg e conduc ted the asy lum-only hear ing on N ovember 17, 2004, and rende red a

n oral de cision on the re cord that same day . (J.A. 30.) During the fourte en-y ear wait for a dec ision on their asy lum application, the Vang s established a r estaura nt in Dear born, Michig an and had two additional children who were born in the Unit ed States. Mr. Va ng was the only

applicant wh o te sti fi e d in

su pp or t of his fa mil y ’s a sylum c la im. He state d th a t hi s p are nts we re ra nk -a nd -f ile “soldiers” who foug ht the communist reg ime in L aos under Gene ral Va

n g Pao and that ar ound 1975,

3 afte r th e CIA an d

A me r ic anf

o r c e s h a d w it h dr aw n , h is f

a mi ly b e g anto h a v e p r o b le ms w it h the L aotian gover

nment beca

use of their support of t he United States during the war . He de scribed how he wa s se pa

rate d f ro m hi s f a mil y and e ve ntu a lly

be c a me a c iti zen of F ra

nc e . Mr . Vang ’s fathe r a lso testified. He stated that he wa s not a hig h-ra nkin g m ember of Gene ral Pao’s f orce s, but that he fea red r etribution by

the communists and so he fled L aos. Mr. Vang’ s fathe r, whil e testifying that he wo rk e d f

or the CI A, pr od

uc e d n o o the r e vid e nc e to s ub sta nti a te his c la im. Mr . V ang ’s fathe r a lso testified that he a

nd his family , other than Mr. Vang , wer e g rante d ref ug ee status when they

rea ched the United States. The D HS submit ted the 2003 Stat e De p ar t m ent C ounty Reports on Human Practice s for F ranc e and L aos, the State De partment Prof i l e of Asylum Cl aims and Country Conditi ons for L aos, and c opies of the wa ivers sig ned by Petitioners pr ior to their admission to the United States. Th e I mmi g ratio n Jud g e de nie d th e Va ng s’ Mo tio n to Te rm inate and a lso de nie d the Va ng s’-5-

a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum . The I mmi g ratio n J ud g e c on c lud e d th a t th e Va ng s h a d f or ma lly wa ive d th e ir rig ht to a remova l hear ing w hen they enter ed the United States under the VWPP, and were there fore proper ly place d in asy lum-only

proce eding s. The I mmigration J udg e fur ther d eter mined that the Vang s were ineligible f

or asy l u m re l i ef

beca use Mr. Va

ng was fir

mly rese ttled in Fra

nce be fore
arr iving in the United States. The I mmigration J udg e also de nied the Va ng s’ re quest for w ithholding of re mov a l be c a

us e Mr . V angfa ile d to de mon str a te that he su ff e re d a ny pa st per se c uti on

in L a os , o r t h at h e w as af

fi l i at edwi t h an y

gro u p t h at m i gh t b e su b

j ec t t o p er s ec u t i o n . T h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge noted that the State De partment re ports indicated that since 1980, thousands of L aotian re fug ees ha d safe ly and succ essfully

returne d to L aos from abroa d to visit relatives, permane ntly rese ttle, or eve n
rec la im th e ir c it iz e n s h ip
. T h e V an g s a p p e a le d th e I mm ig r a ti o nJu d g e ’ s d e c is io nto th e B I A
. On Ap ri l 3, 20 06 , the B I A a ff

ir me d the I mmi g ra

tio n Judg e ’s de c isi on

and dis mis se d Pe tit ion e rs ’ a

pp e a l. The instant petition for re view followe d. II. Un de r t he I NA , th e Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l ma

y g ra nt asy lum

to a n a lie n w ho qu a lif

ie s a s a

“ re fu g e e ,” wh ic h is de fi ne d a s on e “ wh o is un a ble or un wi lli ng to re tur

n to
. . . [his or her h ome country ] because of

perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of per secution on ac count of ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1101(a) (42)( A). This court review s “‘a dminist rative f indings of f

act c oncer ning w hether

[an] alien qualifies as a

ref ug ee unde r a substantial e vidence test.’” Liti v. Gonzales , 4 11 F .3 d 6 31 , 6 36 (6 th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ra ma ni v . A sh c ro ft , 378 F.3d 554, 558 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (alter ation in orig inal)). Under this standard, finding s of fa ct ar e tre ated a s “‘c onclusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compe lled to conclude to the c ontrary .’” Id. (q u o t i n g Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 702-6-

(6th Cir. 2004) (quoti n g 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B) )). The burden is on the pe titioner to show that “‘the eviden ce presente d was so compe lling that no re asonable fac tfinder c ould fail to find the requisite per secution or f

ear of per secution.’” Id. at 6 3 6 -3 7 (q u o t i n g Ouda v . I NS , 324 F.3d 445, 451 (6th Cir. 2003)). A d d it io n a l l y , ana

p p e ll a te c o u rt “ r e v ie w [s ] de novo alleg ed due pr ocess violations in removal hear ings. Vasha v. Gonzales , 4 1 0 F. 3 d 8 6 3 , 8 7 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 1998)). I n revie wing decisions under the VWPP of the I NA, the c ourt g ives defe renc e to the age ncy ’s reasonable interpretation of the statute. See U ritsky v. Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 7 2 8 , 7 3 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g IN S v . A gu irr e -A gu irr e , 526 U.S. 415, 424-25 (1999))
. The c ourt
c an r e ve rs e the a g e nc y ’s fa c tua l de te rm inatio ns on ly if the re c or d e vid e nc e c omp e ls a c on tr ary re su lt. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B)
. The court re views the de nial of a motion to terminate pr ocee dings a nd the g rant of a

n extension of tim e to file a response for a

n abuse of

discretion. See A bu-Khaliel v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 627, 634 ( 6th Cir. 2006). III
. A. As y l u m -O n l y

P ro ce ed i n gs Petitioners argue that they should not have bee n subjected to asy lum-only proce eding s under the VW PP b e c a

u s e th e y “ d id n o t k n o w in g ly an d in te ll ig e n tl y ” w a iv e th e ir r ig h ts to f

u ll r emoval proce eding s and did not ag ree to the terms of the V WP P prior to en t er i n g t h e United St ates. Petitioners maintain that they thought they

wer e coming t o the United States on a visitor visa and t h at b ec au s e t h e V W P P p ro gra m wa s o n l y fo rt y -s i x d ay s o l d at t h e t i m e, “i t i s d o u b t fu l [ M r. Va n g] was told any

thing a bout it.” (Pet. Br . 18-19.) Re sp on de nt c or

re c tly po int s o ut t

hat th e “ kn ow ing ly

and int e lligent ly ” te st a

pp lie s to on ly-7-

the waive r of a

constitutional right and that Petiti oners’ claims reg ardingwaiver in this case are not constitutional claims because at the time the Va ng s signe d the waive rs, they we re aliens re siding outside of the United States. The Supreme Court has noted that “an a lien seekinginitial admissi on to the United States reque sts a privileg e and ha s no constitutional rights re g ardinghis application, for the power to admit or ex clude aliens is a sovereig n prer og ative.” Lan do n v . P las e nc ia , 4 59 U. S. 21 , 3 2 ( 19 82 ); see United States v. Ve rdugo-Urquidez , 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) ( “[A]l iens rec eive constitutional protections [onl y ] when they have c ome within the territory of the United States and de ve lop e d s ub sta

nti a l conne c tio ns wi th the c ountr y .” ). B e c a

us e the Va

ng s w e re no t w a ivi ngri g hts of constitutional significa nce w hen they

signe d t he visa wa iver for ms prior to enteringthe United States, the knowing and intellige nt waiver test does not apply
. Moreove r, the Va

ng s’ contention that they

we re not informed about the VWPP and “wer e not told by any one that they would be waiving their rig hts to a remova l pr ocee ding” are contra dicted by the re cord e vidence . (Pet. Br
. 1 9
. ) T h e Vang s signe d waiver forms, which state d that for admission to the United States under the VWPP “y ou must
. . . [w] aive a ll rights of r eview or appea l of a d m i s s i b i l i t y d e t e r

m i n a t i o n m a d e b y an i m m i g r a t i o n o f f i c e r , an d a l l r i g h t s t o c o n t e s t a c tio n in deportation, ex cept f

or asylum.” (J
. A. 2 4 8 -5 7
. ) I n W igg le swo rth v . I

NS , 319 F.3d 951 ( 7th Cir. 2003), the petitioner also claimed that he r wa iver pursua nt to the VWP P was not knowing ly made. Id. at 959. The Seventh Circuit disagr eed, holdingthat the petitioner’s w aiver was va lid. The court
rea soned in part that “ the waive r for m was exceptionally clea

r that, in sig ning the form, [petitioner]
was wa iv in g h e r

r ig h ts to a

h e ar in g b e f

o r e anI J, ana d mi n is tr a ti v e a p p e a l t o th e B I A an d

ju d ic ial revie w of the a dminist rative de cision.” Id. Be cause the Vangs signed the waiver s, we find, like the-8-

court in W

igg le swo rth , that Petitioners’ waive r of their rig hts to contest removal proc eeding s was
va lid . T hu s, Pe tit ion e rs we re pr op e rl y pla c e d in a sylum -o nly

pr oc e e din g s. B. Estoppe l The Vang s argue that the DHS should be estopped f rom eff ectingtheir re moval beca

use the g overnme nt unduly

delay ed their proce eding s and failed to timely produce the waive r for

ms signed by the Va ng s. Th is co ur

t has ob se rv e d tha t “ the Sup re me Court ha s le ft op e n th e po ssi bil ity

that a
c la im o f e qu ita

ble e sto pp e l ma

y lie a g a ins t a fe de ra l g ov e rnme nt a g e nc y ” in a n im mig ratio n c on te xt. Elia v. Gonzales , 4 3 1 F. 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Office of Pers. Mgm t. v. Richmond , 496 U. S. 4 14 , 4 21 -2 3 ( 19 90 )) . T o th e e xten t th a t f e de ra l c ourt s h a ve e nte rt a ine d e sto pp e l c la ims a g a ins t the g overnme nt, a showing of “a ffirmative misconduct” c ausing the denial of a bene fit is required. See id. As the El ia c ourt

e xpla ine d, “ [i]n th e c on te xt of an est op pe l cla im ag a ins t the g ov e rnme nt, ‘[a]ffirmative misconduct is more than mere neg lige nce. I t is an act by the g overnme nt that either intentionally

or re cklessly

misleads the claimant.’ ” Id. (q u o t i n g E s t a t e of Jame

s v. United States Dep’ t of Agric. , 4 0 4 F. 3 d

9 8 9 , 9 9 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Mich. Ex press, Inc. v . United States , 374 F.3d 424, 427 ( 6th Cir. 2004))). Petitioners have not alleg ed, nor pr oven, that t h e gover nment eng ag ed in af

firmative misconduct. They only argue that they never would have sta

y ed in the United States ha d they known that it wo uld take fo ur

te e n y e ars be fo re the y

we re a ble to p re se nt e vid e nc e in s uppo rt of the ir application. Howeve r, the Supreme Court ha s deter mined that delay is insuff icient t o p rove aff irmative misconduct. INS v. Miranda , 459 U.S. 14, 19 (1982) (“ Proof only that the Gover

nment failed to proc ess promptly an application falls far shor t of establishing such conduc t.”).-9-

Petitioners also contend that they have show n “ide n t i fi able pr ejudice” and cite Kowalczyk

v . I NS , 2 45 F .3 d 1 14 3 ( 10 th C ir . 2 00 1) fo r t he po sit ion

that i f a pet it io ner can s ho w i de nti fi a ble p r e j u d i c e , t h e ne s t o p p e l c ana p p l y , w i t h o u tan y

d e m o n s t r a t i o no f

a f f i r m a t i v e m i s c o n d

u c t
. In Kowalczyk , th e Te nth

Cir c uit he ld t hat e sto pp e l w ou ld n ot p re ve nt t he BI A fro m enforc ingits
re mov a l or de r d e sp ite a

nin e -y e ar d e lay

and state d, “ [i]n th e a

bs e nc e of a sh ow ingthat th e de lay

in the pre sent ca se wa s deliberate or resulted in identifiable pre judice to the petitioner’ s case , . . . delay is insufficient to demonstrate affir mative m isconduct . . . .” Id. at 1 1 5 0
. T h o u gh P et i t i o n er s al l ege “i d en t i fi ab l e p re

j u d i ce , ” t h ey

h av e n o ts h o wn h o w t h e o u t co m e o f t h ei r a s y l u m -o n l y p ro ce ed i n gs would have be en diffe rent, but for the g overnme nt’s delay . Despite that de lay , M r. Vang ’s father
was a ble to testify

as to his activities in L aos under Gene ral Va

ng Pao. The I mmigration J udge found that Mr. Va

ng failed to de monstrate that he w as af filiated with any

g roup t hat m ight be subject to persec ution. Con se qu e ntl y , w e fi nd

tha t th e DH S sh ou ld n ot b e e sto pp e d f rom effect ing the Va

ng s’
remova l as Petitioners have not shown a ffirmative misconduct or identifiable prejudice
. C. D ue Pr oc e ss Th e Va ng s ar g ue that the g ov e rnme nt’ s fourt e e n- y e ar de lay in co mpl e tin g the ir a sylum -o nly proce eding s deprived the m of due proce ss. The Fifth Amendment g uara ntees of due proce ss ext end to aliens in immi g ration proc eeding s and entitle aliens to a f ull and fa ir hea

ring
. Huicoche a-Gome

z
v . I NS , 237 F.3d 696, 699 (6th Cir. 2001). We have previously held t hat “reviewing an alleg ed due p ro ce s s v i o l at i o ni s a t wo -s t ep i n qu i ry : fi rs t , wh et h er t h er e w as a d ef

ec ti nt h e r em o v al p ro ce ed i n g; and sec ond, whether

the alien wa s prejudice d beca use of it.” Vasha , 410 F.3d at 872.-10-

Petitioners point to s ection 1158(d) (5 )( A) (ii) which state s that “the initial interview or hear ing on the asylum application shall commence not later than 45 day s after the date a n application is filed.” Howe ver, se ction 1158(d)( 7) make s clea r that “[ n]ot hing in this subsection shall be construed to cre ate any substantial or proce dural rig ht or bene fit that is lega lly enfor cea ble by any party ag ainst the United States or its ag encie s or offic ers . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)( 7). More over, this court has re cog nized that the gove rnment’s de lay in s ch ed u l i ng or conduc ting immigr ation proce eding s does not violate due pr ocess. Se e El ia , 431 F.3d at 275-76 (holdingthat a five-y ear de lay wa s n ot a

vio la tio n o f d

ue pr oc e ss a

nd statin g , “ [n]o a

uth or ity su pp or ts [p e tit ion e r’ s] contention that a spe edy deportation he aring constitutes a fundame ntal rig ht impli catingsubstantive due proc ess.”) . Simi larly , the fourte en-y ear delay wh i ch Petitioners re ly

on in this case does not violate their due proce ss rig hts. I n addition, Petiti oners f

ail to show prejudice . This Circuit has instructed that “‘ [p] rejudice ’ inquires, e

xpo st , w he the r d

ue pr oc e ss wa s viol a te d by e va luatin g wh e the r t he a lie n’ s c la ims c ou ld have suppor

ted a diff ere nt outcome.” Sako v. Gonzales , 434 F.3d 857, 864 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Petitioners fail to alleg e, or show, tha t they would have be en g rante d relief or protect i o n from
remova l had the g overnme nt a cted sooner. They do not ide ntify what evidenc e, if a ny , they might h a v e p r e s e n t e d

i ns u p p o rto f t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n w e r e t h e y n o t p r e c l u d e d f r o m d o i n g s o b y t h e d e l a y. As a de lay

in scheduling is not a violation of due process, a nd beca use Petitioners have failed to sho w pr e

jud ic e , we fi nd that the sc he du lin g de lay did no t vi olate Pe tit ion e rs ’ d

ue pr oc e ss r ig hts
. D. Abuse of

Discre tion The Va ng s argu e t h at t he I mmigration J udg e abuse d his discretion by repe atedly

allowing the g overnme nt additional time to file a response to the Vang s’ motion to terminate and their motion-11-

fo r c op ie s o f t

he sig ne d w a ive r f

or ms. I t is Pe tit ion e rs ’ pos iti on that the I mmi g ra tio n Jud g e sh ou ld not have pe rmitted the g overnme nt additional time to produce the sig ned visa waiver forms and that their motion to terminate the asy lum-only proce eding s should have been gr anted, thus allowing them to s e e k a lte rn a tiv e re lie f i n r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s. I n deter mining whe ther the Immigration J udg e abuse d his discretion, this court must decide wh e the r t he I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s de c isi on “ ‘w a s ma de wi tho ut a ratio na l expla natio n, ine xplic a

bly depar ted from e stablished policies, or res ted on an imper missibl e basis such a s invidious discrim i n at i o n . . . .’” Abu-Khaliel , 4 3 6 F. 3 d at 6 3 4 (q u o t i n g Ba lan i v . I NS , 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 (6th Cir. 1982)) . The Immigration J udg e is aff orded w ide latitude in conductingproce eding s and has the a uthority to set and extend time limit s for filings. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c)
. Additionally , there is no definite time limit est ab l i s h ed b y the statute and r eg ulations for pre senting documents in a VWPP case . See 8 C.F.R. § 217. Obtaining copies of the signe d waiver forms wa s important to the proce eding befor e the Immigration J udg e. Moreove r, as the B I A explained, “[h] ad the Immigration J udg e dec ided to terminate the proce eding s due to the fa ilure of the D HS to produce the [waiver fo rm s], the [Va

ng s] w ou ld not the n be e nti tle d to re mov a l pr oc e e din g s. Ra the r, the DH S c ou ld a g a in ins tit ute a sylum

on ly pr oc e e din g s, and

pr od uc e the do c ume nts a t th a t ti me .” (J.A . 5.) As su c h, it does not appe ar that the I mmigration J u dg e’s de cision was made “without a rational expl anation, in e x p l i c a b l y d e p a r t e d f r o m e s ta b li s h e d p o li c ie s , o r

r e s te d o nanim p e r mi s s ib le b a s is [. ]” Abu-Khaliel , 436 F.3d at 634. Conse q u en tly , we f ind that he did not abuse his discre tion by allowing the g overnme nt more time to produce copies of the waiver s. E. F ir m Re se ttl e me nt The I lleg al I mmigrat ion Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996 ( “I I RI RA”)Moreove r, Petitioners cite no a uthority for their position t hat the firm r esettlement 4 doctrine c annot be a pplied to asy lum applications filed bef ore 8 U .S.C. § 1158 was e nacte d. -12- pr ov ide s th a t an a lie n may no t ob ta in a sylum if he “ wa s fi rm ly re se ttl e d in ano the r c ountr y pr ior to
arr iving in th e U n it e d St a te s . ” 8 U
. S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( v i)
. “ F ir ml y r e s e tt le d ” is d e f

ine d as fo llo ws : An a lie n is c on sid e re d to be fi rm ly re se ttl e d if

, p ri or to a rr iva l in the Un ite d St a te s, he or she enter ed into another country with, or while in that country rec eived, a

n offe r of per manent re sident s t at u s , citizenship, or some other ty pe of pe rmane nt re se ttl e me nt u

nle ss h e or

sh e e sta bli sh e s: (a) That his or her

entry into the nation was a ne cessa ry conseque nce of

his or her flig ht from per secution, that he or she rema ined in that nation only as long as wa s nece ssary to arra ng e o n wa rd trave l, and that he or she did not establish signific ant ties in that country ; or (b) That the conditions of his or her r esidenc e in that nation wer e so substantially and consciously restric ted by the authority of the country of ref ug e that he was not in f

act rese ttled. . . . 8 C.F.R. § 208.15. The Immigration J udg e dete rmined that Mr. Va ng wa s f ir ml y rese ttled in Fra

nce, thus a sy lum relief was not ava ilable. The B I A af firmed this deter

mination. Petit ioners ar g ue on appe al that they
wer e not f

irmly rese ttled in Fr ance beca use the firm rese ttlement doc trine did not exis t in 1990 a nd be c a us e Mr . V angne ve r i nte nd e d to re se ttl e in F ra nc e . T ho ug h the I I RI RA wa s n ot e na c te d unti l 1996, see Ali v. R eno , 237 F.3d 591, 594 ( 6th Cir. 2001), and Petitioners f iled for a sy lum on J uly

27, 1990, Petitioners rec og nize that even prior to its enac tment, firm rese ttlement “was one fac tor the I J could have considere d.” (Pet. Reply 5.) I n 1971, the Supreme Court announc ed that the pr esenc e 4 of firm re settlement constituted a fa ctor for consideration in asy lum petitions
. See R osenberg v

.-13-

W oo , 402 U.S. 49, 56 (1971). Additionally , an alien’s intent is not a n exception to t h e firm
rese ttlement doctrine. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.15. Pe tit ion e rs a lso argue that e ve n if the fi rm re se ttl e me nt do c tr ine c on tr ols , it is i na pp lic a ble he re be c a us e Mr . V angwa s o nly

sixte e n w he n h e arr ive d in F ra nc e . Ap pe lla

nt c ite s Va ng

v . I NS , 146 F.3d 1114 ( 9th Cir. 1998) in suppor t of their position, but that case is disting uishable. I n Vang , the petitioner wa s a minor at the time he soug ht asy lum. Id. at 1115. The c ourt looked to whethe r the minor’s par ents had fir mly rese ttled in another c ountry to determine w hether t h e mi nor had firmly rese ttled elsewhe re and conclude d that they had. The BIA aff irmed the denial of

the minor’s
a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum and wi thh old ingof

de po rt atio n. I n th e ins tant c a se , M r. Va ngwa s n ot a minor at the time he file d fo r as y l u m. He wa s twenty -eig ht y ear s old and had lived in F ranc e for eleve n y ear s, two y ear s as a minor and nine y ear s as an adult. Mr. Vangadmitted that he wa s g rante d citizenship, was issued a Fr ench pa ssport, attended sc hools, married his wife , started a family , rente d and owne d proper

ty , and held a

job, a ll in F ranc e. In light of this evidenc e, we cannot f ind that the board a bused its discretion in finding that Petitioners were firmly rese ttled in Fra

nce. F. Withholding of Removal a nd Relief under

CAT I n addition to Petit ioners’ as y l u m cl aim, the Vang s also petition for re view of the BIA’s denial of the ir reque st for withholding of remova l under I

NA § 241(b)( 3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3), and withho l ding pur suant to CAT. CAT provides protec tion to aliens in the form of withholding of
re mov a l to the c ountr

y of tor tur e . 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .1 6( c )( 4) ; Al i , 237 F.3d at 596. The “ [w] ithholding of re moval is re q u ired if the a lien can de monstrate that ‘his or he r life or fre edom would be thr e a te ne d in

the pr op os e d c ountr

y of re mov a l on

a c c ount of ra c e , r e lig ion , n a tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in a par ticular socia l gr oup, or political opinion.’” Liti , 411 F.3d at 640 (q u o t i n g 8 C.F.R. §-14-

12 08 .1 6( b) ). A d e c isi on that an al ie n is not eli g ibl e fo r wit hh old ing of re mov a l is “ c on c lus ive un le ss manifestly

contra ry to law” an d “t h e admi nistrative finding s of fa ct ar e conc lusive unless any
rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conc lude to t he contr ary . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ), (C). The applicant f or withholding of remova l pur suant to CAT bear s the burde n of proof to “‘ establish that it is m ore likely than not that he or she would be tortured if remove d to the proposed c ountry

of re moval.’” Al i , 237 F.3d at 596 (quoting 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(c)( 2)). I n the instant case , the I mmigration J udg e found that Mr. Vangfailed to de monstrate that he suffe red a ny past perse cution in L aos, or that he was aff iliated with a

ny g roup that might be subje ct to persec ution. The I mmigration Judge noted that the State Depa rtment repor

ts indicated that since 19 80 , th ou sand s o f L a oti an r e fu g e e s h a d s a fe ly and su c c e ssf ull y re tur ne d to L a os fr om ab ro a d to vis it relatives, permane ntly

rese ttle, or eve n rec laim their citizenship. The BIA af firmed. Pe tit ion e rs a lso argue that the I mmi g ra tio n Jud g e imp ro pe rl y

re fe re nc e d a

do c ume nt n ot i n evidenc e. The document not in evidenc e refer red to by the I mmigration J udg e wa s a for m that Mr. Vang ’s father testified a s to having filled out with the names of his sibling s and children be fore he
came to the United States. Mr. Va ng ’s father testified that he g ave this for m to Mr. Vang , but Mr. Va ngdid no t pr od uc e it at th e a sylum -o nly he ari ng . T he I mmi g rati on Judg e dr e w a n a dv e rs e i n fe re n ce fr o m t h i s , s u rm i s i n g t h at M r. Va n g’s n am e wa s n o t o n t h e fo rm . T h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge
a lso fo un d th a t Mr . V angha d n ot p ro ff e re d a ny oth e r c re dib le e vid e nce t hat he wa s r e la te d to his “purpor ted father.” (J.A. 40.) Howeve r, the I mmigration J udg e conc luded that eve n if Mr. Va ng ’s “story ” wa s true, “a

clea r re ading of the latest country repor ts ref lects t hat people in those shoes ar e
no t su bj ect to a p a tte rn

or pr a c tic e of

pe rs e c uti on

in L a os . T hu s, [Mr . V ang ] wo uld fa il o n th is-15-

burden . . . .” Id. The I mmigration J udg e’s c onclusion is supported by the testimony

of Mr. Va

ng ’s fathe r, wh o s ta te d th a t he wa s n ot a hig h- ra nk ingme mbe r o f G e ne ra l Pa o’ s f or c e s. As previously

stated, this court ca

n reve rse a

denial of relief only wher e the alien has shown that “the e vidence prese nted was so c ompelling that no r easona ble fa ct finder

could fa il to find” that the alien e stablished his eligibility for a sy lum and withholding of r emoval. Liti , 411 F.3d at 636-37 (i n t ern al qu o t at i o n s an d

ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). As P et i t i o n er s h av e f ai l edt o m ak e th e re qu i s i t e s h o wi n g, we find th a t t h e B I A ’ s d e c is io nd e n y in g Pe ti ti o n e r s ’ c la im s f o r w it h h o ld in g o f

r e mo v a l a

n d relief under CAT w as supported by substantial evidence
.

I V. For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the final a dminist rative or der of the B I A.