# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 15 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ger Lee

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Je ffer so n B . Ses si on s, II I, Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 13 , 20 17
Fi le d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ger Lee, a na ti ve of Tha il an d an d a ci ti zen of Lao s, pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an

or de r of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n A p p eal s (BIA) di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m th e
de ci si on of an im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ), whi ch de ni e d hi m as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of

rem ov al

, can cel la ti on of rem ov al

, an d rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti o n Aga in st Tort ur e (CAT). In hi s pr o se br ie f, Lee as se rts th at (1 ) he was erro ne ou sl y de ni ed rev ie w bya th ree- m em be r BIA pa ne l; (2 ) de la y s in th e rem ov al pr oc eed in gs vi ol at ed th e Sp eed y
Tria l Act , 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1; (3) th e IJ rel ie d o n u nr el ia bl e g ov ern m en t i nf or m at io n

reg ard in g hi s fat he r; (4 ) he wil l be to rtu red in Tha il an d or Lao s du e to hi s “ st at el es s

pe rs o n ” s t a tu s; an d (5 ) hi s du e-p ro ces s an d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s were vi ol at ed

be cau se (a) th e IJ ab an do n e d he r ne ut ral fact -fi nd er ro le by ac co rd in g m or e weig ht

to co u n t r y rep or ts th an to hi s te st im on y , a nd (b ) hi s he ari ng was no t fu nd am en ta ll y
fai r. 1

To th e ex te nt th at Lee’s br ie f can be read to cl ai m a du e-p ro ces s vi ol at io n, we

co nc lu de th at th e BIA di d no t de pr iv e Lee of fu nd am en ta l fai r n e s s by refe rri ng hi s

ap pe al to a si ng le m em

b e r , s e e Lou lo u v. Ash cro ft

, 35 4 F.3 d 70 6, 70 8- 09 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at Le e ’s sp eed y -tr ia l co nt en ti on s are pr ecl ud ed by a

pr io r d i s tri ct co ur t di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e of an id en ti cal cl ai m in hi s 28 U. S. C.
§ 22 41 pe ti ti on

. See Lee v. Im m ig rat io n Enfo rcem en t Cu st om s , 20 17 W L 41 74 42 6
(D. Mi nn

. Ju l y 2 1

, 2 01 7) (s li p co py); se e al so Po hl m an n v. Bi l-J ax , In c. , 17 6 F.3 d

11 10

, 11 12 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (is su e act ua ll y de ci de d in no n m eri ts di sm is sa l is gi ve n

pr ecl us iv e eff

ect in su bs eq ue nt act io n b et ween same part ie s)

.

Lik ewis e , w e co nc lu de th at Lee’s va rio us rem ai ni ng du e-p ro ces s cl ai m s are
ba se le ss an d fai l to id en ti fy an y fu nd am en ta l pr o c ed ur al erro r or res ul ti ng act ua l

pr ejud ic e. See Mu iru ri v . Ly nc h , 80 3 F .3d 98 4, 9 86 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)

.

Fi na ll y , co ns tru in g th em as ch al le ng es to th e IJ ’s de ni al of CAT rel ie f, we fin d

Lee’s as se rti on s th at he is a “ st at el es s p ers on ” an d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t in fo rm at io n

was un rel ia bl e, un av ai l i n g

. A n y in accu raci es in th e go ve rn m en t’s in fo rm at io n

reg ard in g Lee’s fat he r were no t ne ces sa ry to th e IJ ’s fin di ng s, as sh e ba se d he r de ni al

1 L ee do es no t m ean in gf

ul ly co nt es t hi s (1 ) hi s rem ov ab il it y ; or (2 ) th e I J ’ s fi n d i n g s th at he was st at ut or il y in el ig ib le fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

, an d

can cel la ti on of rem ov al ; th us , th os e is su es are waiv ed

. See Ch ay -Vel as qu ez v. Ash cro ft , 36 7 F .3d 75 1, 7 56 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

-2

-on th e la ck o f e v i d e n ce sh owi ng th at Lee wou ld be to rtu red if he were ret ur ne d to

Lao s or Tha il an d. The ev id en ce was no t so co m pe ll in g th at an y reas on ab le fact fin de r

wou ld ha ve f

o un d Lee ha d m et hi s bu rd en of pr oo f, an d Lee’s st at us as a “ st at el es s

pe rs on ” di d no t ex cu se hi s bu rd en to sh ow why he wo u l d b e t or tu red if he were

r et ur ne d to ei th er co un try. See Oso no wo v. Mu ka se y , 52 1 F.3 d 92 2, 92 8 (8 t h C i r

. 20 08 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w; al ie n m us t es ta bl is h th at it is m or e li ke ly th an no t th at he

wou ld be to rtu red in co un try of rem ov al ); cf. Agh a v. Hol de r , 74 3 F.3 d 60 9, 61 8 (8 th

Ci r. 20 14 ) (rejec ti ng al ie n’s arg um en t th at

, as st at el es s pe rs on , he w a s e n t it le d to

as y lu m be cau se no go ve rn m en t wou ld acce pt hi m ; pl a i n la ng ua ge of 8 U.S.C.
§ 11 01 (a)( 42 )(a) req ui red st at el es s p e r s on to sh ow sa m e well -fo un de d fear of

pe rs ecu ti o n a s i n d iv id ua l wit h na ti on al it y ). The pe ti ti on is de ni ed

. See 8t h Ci r. R.

47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-