N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GURDEEP SINGH ATWAL,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 12-70811 Age n c y No. A045-254-360 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 20, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s , a

nd AM ON, ** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Gurde e p Singh Atwa l pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ de c ision upholding his re m ova bility unde r se c tion 

# F IL ED

MAY18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble C arol B a gle y

Am on, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.237(a )(3)(B )(iii) of the Im m igration a

nd Na t iona lity Ac t (“ INA” ). Atwa l a lso pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s pre te rm ission of his a pplic ation for a

wa i ve r of
re m ova bility unde r INA § 237(a )(1)(H), de nia l of his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l a

n d for re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ), and de nia l of his va

rious due proc e ss c la im s. W e de ny the pe tition. 1. Se c tion 237(a)(3)(B )(iii) of the INA provide s : “ Any a lie n who a

t a ny tim e ha s be e n c onvic t e d . . . of a viola tion of, or a

n atte m pt or a c onspira c y

to viola te , se c tion of 1546 of Title 18 (re lating to fra

ud a nd m isuse of visa s, pe rm its,
and othe r e ntry

doc um e nts), is deporta

ble .” 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(3)(B )(iii). Atwa l
argue s tha

t he is not re m o va

ble on this ground be c a

use he wa s c onvic te d for
c onspiring to c om

m it visa fraud unde r 18 U.S.C
. § 371, not 18 U.S.C . § 1546. B ut INA § 237(a )(3)(B )(iii) provide s tha t a c o nvic tion for c onspirac

y to viola te 18 U.S.C . § 1546, in ad dition to a c onvic tion for viola

ting 18 U.S.C . § 1546 itse lf,
re nde rs a n a l ie n re m o va

b l e . Se e id . Se c tion 1546 doe s not c onta i n a c onspira c y provision, so a

de fe nda nt c ha rge d with c onspiring to viola te tha t se c t ion would be
c ha rge d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371, thege ne ra l c onspira c y sta tute . An a lie n c onvic te d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371 of c onspiring to viola t e 18 U.S.C . § 1546 is thus re m ova b le

2unde r INA § 237(a )(3)(B )(iii). Se eTaggar v . Holde r , 736 F.3d 886, 888 (9th C ir.

2013) 1 ; G ourc hev . Holde r , 663 F.3d 882, 883, 885-86 (7th C ir. 2011). 2. The obje c t of a

c onspira c y

c ha rge d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371 is a n e sse ntia l
e le m e nt of the c rim e , whic h m ust be prove n or a dm itte d for a de fe nda nt to be
c onvic te d. Se e Unite d State s v . Arlt , 252 F.3d 1032, 1034 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba nc ) (“ [T] he spe c ific offe nse de signa te d a s the obje c t of the c onspira c y in a § 371 indic tm e nt doe s c o nstitutean e le m e nt of the offe n s e .” ). The B IA did not e rr in
re vie wing Atwa l’ s ple a

a gre e m e nt to de te rm ine whic h substa ntive c rim ina l offe nse or offe nse s we re the obje c t of the c onspira c y

to whic h Atwa l ple a d guilty
. S e e N ijhaw an v . Holde r , 557 U.S. 29, 41 (2009) (providing tha t the c ourts m a

y re vie w c e rta in c onvic tion doc um e nts, inc luding a ple a a gre e m e nt for the lim ite d purpose of “ d e te rm i ning whic h sta t utory phra se (c onta ine d within a sta t utory provision tha

t c ove rs se ve ra l diffe re nt ge ne ric c rim e s) c ove re d a prior c onvic tion.” ).

1 The re c ord in Taggar re ve a ls tha t the pe titione r in tha

t c a se wa s c onvic te d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371, though the opinion in tha

t c a se doe s not so sta

te . 3Atwa l a dm itte d un e quivoc a lly in the ple a

a gre e m e nt to c onspiring to viola t e 18 U.S.C . § 1546(a). 2 The unde rly ing obje c t to viola te a fe d e ra l sta

tute is a n e sse ntia l e le m e nt of a

c onspira c y

c onvic tion. Se e Arlt , 252 F.3d a t 1037-38. The B IA thus did not e

rr in holding Atwa

l re m o va ble unde r INA § 237(a)(3)(B )(iii) ba se d on his c o nvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371 for c onspiring to viola te 18 U.S.C
. § 1546. 3. An a lie n re m ova

b le unde r INA § 237(a )(3)(B )(iii) is not e ligiblefor a fraud wa ive r unde r INA § 237(a )(1)(H). Taggar , 736 F.3d a t 890 (c iting Gourc he , 663 F.3d a

t 886-87). B e c a

use one of Atwa l’ s grounds of re m ova bility c annot be
wa ive d at the disc re tion of theAttorne y Ge ne ra l, the B IA did not e rr in pre t e rm itting his wa

ive r a pplic ation. Se e id. at 891. 4. The B IA a lso did not err in de ny ing Atwa l’ s a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l. “ To qua lify for withholding of rem o va l, a n a pplic ant m

ust show a

‘ c le ar proba

bility ’ of future pe rse c ution . . . ‘ on a c c ount of’ one of the sta tutorily
e num e rate d grounds: ra c e , re ligion, na tiona lity , politic a l opinion, or me m be rship in

2 The ple a a gre e m e nt a lso a dm itte d c onspiring to viola

t e 18 U.S.C
. § 1001(a ). Atwa l did not raise in his brie fs or at ora l a rgum e nt (for whic h c ounse l fa ile d to a ppe ar) any

que stion a s to whe the r his c onvic tion for a singlec ount of c onspira c y

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371 c ould ha ve prope rly

e nc om pa sse d the inte nt to viola te both 18 U.S.C . § 1546(a) and 18 U.S.C
. § 1001(a ), and, if not, whe t he r that c onc lusion a ffe c ts the applic ation of the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h in this c a se . W e the re fore do not a ddre s s those que stions. 4a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group.” Garc ia v
. Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2014) (first quoting Alv are

z-Santos v
. IN

S , 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th C ir. 2003); then quoting IN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 480 (1992)). The propose d soc ia l group of pe rsons who ha

ve “ live d a

nd a c quire d re sourc e s in theUnite d State s,” is not a c ogniz a ble soc i a l group for thepurpose s of withholding of re m o va l. Se e Ramire z-Munoz v
. Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th C ir. 2016); Sam v . Holde r , 752 F.3d 97, 100 (1st C i r. 2014); Matul-He rnande z v . Holde r , 685 F.3d 707, 712-13 (8th C ir. 2012). 5. Atwa l like w ise ha s not de m onstra te d his e l igibility

for re lie f unde r C AT.

“ To qua lify

for C AT re lie f, an a

pplic ant m

ust e sta blish tha t ‘ he [or she ] is m ore like ly tha n not to suffe r inte ntiona lly -inflic te d c rue l a nd inhum an tre at

m e nt’ if
re m ove d.” Garc i a , 749 F.3d a t 791 (a lte ration in origina l) (quoting N

uru v . Gonzale z , 404 F.3d 1207, 1221 (9th C ir. 2005)). Atwa l pre se nts no e v ide nc e , through e ithe r his de c la

ration or the subm itte d c ountry c onditions re

ports, tha t he
e xpe rie nc e d pa st torture , or tha t he is “ any

m ore like ly to be [a ] vic tim [] of viole nc e and c rim e s tha

n the popula c e a s a

whole ” in India
. Se e Ramire z-Munoz , 816 F.3d a

t 1230 (c iting De lgado-Ortiz , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C i r. 2010)). 6. Atwa l’ s due proc e s s c la im s a lso la c k m e rit. The Im m igration Judge prope rly de nie d Atwa l’ s m otion for re c usa l, a s the re is no e vide nc e that she ha d a
5“ pe rsona l, rathe r tha n judic ia l, bia s ste m

m i ng from an ‘ e xtra

judic ia l ’ sourc e whic h
re sulte d in a

n opinion on the

m e rits on som e ba sis othe r tha n wha t [she ] le arne d from [he r] pa rtic ipation in the

c a se .” Vargas-He r

nande z v . Gonzale

s , 497 F.3d 919, 925 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Matte r of Ex ame , 18 I. & N. De c . 303, 306 (B IA 1982)). Atwa l’ s c la im

tha t the Im m igration Judgee rre d by

not a d m iniste ring a Miranda warning to him

a lso la c ks m e rit. Miranda warnings a re not re quire d be fore que stioning a

non-c itiz e n in c i vil re m o va l proc e e dings. Se e U.S. v . SolanoGodine s , 120 F.3d 957, 960 (9th C ir. 1997). Fina lly , e ve n a s sum ing the re we re proc e dura l viola tions a t Atwa l’ s 1997
m arria ge inte rvie w, he ha s de m onstra te d no pre judic e from

those a lle g e d viola tions, given tha

t he a dm itte d in fe de ra l distric t c ourt tha t his first ma

rria ge wa s fraudule nt. Se e Ibarra-Flore s v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th C ir. 2006). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

6