Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 43(c) (2), Attorne y Gene ral Micha el 1 B. Muka sey

is automatically

substitut ed for

former Attorney Gene ral Albe rto R. Gonzales as the re spondent in this case. 06-3383-ag Savchuk v. Mukasey

1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 4 August Term , 2007 5 6 (Argued: Novembe r 26, 2007 Dec ided: Marc h 4, 2008) 7 8 Docke t No. 06-3383-a g 9 10

____________________ 11 12 VASI L Y SAVCHUCK, 13 14 Pe tit ion e r, 15 16 v. 17 18 MI CHAEL B. MUK ASEY, ATTORNEYGENERAL 19 OF T HE UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, 1 20 21 Respondent 22 23

_________________________ 24 25 Be fore : MCL AUGHL I N, B .D. PARKER, W ESL EY, Circuit Judges 26 27 For Petitioner : Kai W. De Gr aaf , New Y ork, NY. 28 29 For Respondent : E m i l y H o w ar d
, A s s i s t an tU n i t e d S t at e s A t t o r

n e y for Reg inald I . L loy d, 30 United States Attorney for the D istrict of South Carolina 31 32 33 34 35 362 1 PER

CU RIAM : 2 3 Vasily

Savchuck pe titions for r eview of a Jul y 14, 2006 decision of the B oard of 4 I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) aff irming the Marc h 10, 2000 decision of Immigration J udg e Alan 5 Vomacka

(“I J ”) upholdingSavchuck’ s removability under 8 U .S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (A)( ii) and 6 denying his a

pplication for a sylum, withholdi ngof re moval, and re lief under the Convention 7 Ag ainst Torture ( “CAT”)

. In re Vasily Sav chuck , No. A47 610 514 (B .I .A. J uly 14, 2006). 8 9 BACK GR OUND 10 11 Savchuck, bor n in Ukraine on Fe bruar

y 11, 1987, g ained a dmission t o the United States 12 in J uly

2000 as a L awf

ul Permanent Resident. In Marc h 2005, Savchuck ple d g uilty to gr and 13 larc e ny

in t he F ourt h D e g re e in v iol atio n o f S e c tio n 1 55 .3 0 o f t he Ne w Y or

k Pe na l L aw, a

Cla ss 14 E f

e lony ari sin ga s a

c on se qu e nc e of

a c ar t he ft . T wo months late r, Savc hu c k p le d guil ty to p e tit 15 larc e ny

un de r S e c tio n 1 55 .2 5, a

Cla ss B mis de me ano r a

ri sin gfr om t

he the ft of a vid e o g ame 16 from a store . Savchuck c ommitt ed the grand la rce ny offe nse bef

ore his eighteenth birthday , but 17 pled guilty

to both offense s after

he turne d eig hteen. Ne w York tre ated him as a n adult offe nder. 18 Ba sed on these c onvictions, the I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) c harg ed 19 Savchuck unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)( 2)(A) (ii), which pr ovides for the remova bility of an a lien 20 convicted of

two crimes of

moral turpitude not ar ising out of a single scheme of criminal 21 misconduct. Savchuc k moved to terminate the proce eding s on the g round that his g rand la rce ny 22 conviction did not constitute a “c onviction” for immig ration purpose s beca use he c ommitt ed the 23 crime be fore he turne d eig hteen. He also filed an a pplication for a sylum, withholdi ngof re moval 24 and

re lie f u nd e r C AT a s a

me mbe r o f a

pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up , b a se d o n h is a sse rt ion tha t hi s 25 “Ukr ainian nationality will not be rec og nized . . . . [ and] the Ukrainian g overnme nt will attempt 26 to ostracize me.” 27 The I J found Savchuc k subject to remova l and denied him re lief. ( JA 75 ) T h e IJ 28 conclude d that Savchuck ha d two convictions for c rimes of mora l turpitude, which supplied the 29 g rounds for r emoval, and that Savchuck did not qualify for a sylum or withholding of r emoval 30 beca

use he did not, simply

by virtue of having be en abse nt from his native Ukra ine for ma ny 31 y ear s, belongto a par ticular, identifiable , social g roup. He also found that Savchuc k did not have 32 a we ll-founded f

ear of per secution in Ukra ine or a probability

of per secution or torture that 33 would qualify

for r elief unde r CAT. 34 Savchuck a ppeale d to the BIA. The B I A af firmed the I J ’s conc lusion that S avchuc k’s 35 c onvic tio n f

or g ra nd larc e ny c on sti tut e d a

“ c onvic tio n” fo r i mmi g ra tio n p ur po se s a nd tha t th is 36 conviction, coupled w ith the second, re ndere d him removable unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)( 2)(A) (ii). 37 The B I A also found that the doc uments proffe red to support the c onvictions — namely a copy of 38 the re c or d o f c onvic tio n a nd a Ce rt if ic atio n o f R e c or ds statin gtha t it wa s a “ tr ue and a c c ur ate 39 copy

of the Sentenc e and Commitment court orde r on file in the . . . Ne w York City Depa rtment 4 0 o f C o rr ec t i o n s ” — we re s u ff

i ci en t

. T h e B I A f

urt h er co n cl u d edth atth e c at ego ry o f “ y o un g, 41 cer

tain to be homeless, depor tees subjec t to arre st and prolong ed dete ntion” did not constitut e a 42 particula

r social group and that Savchuck did not qualify for a sylum, withholdi ng , or protec tion3 1 under CAT be cause his assertions of possible har m if require d to return to the Ukr aine we re too 2 speculative. 3 4 DI SCU SSIO N 5 6 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) (A) de fines “c onviction” as “ a for mal judgme nt of guilt of the 7 alien ente red by

a cour t . . . where — (i) a judg e or jury has found the a lien g uilty or the a lien has 8 enter ed a ple a of guilty .” The BIA and the I J both concluded that Savchuck’ s adjudications 9 satisfied this criteria and re jected his a

rgument that his gr and lar ceny conviction should be 10 disreg arde d beca

use he c ommitt ed the of

fense befor e he tur

ned eighteen. Savc huk appea ls and 11 we r eview this question of law de novo

. See Ph on g Th an h Nguy e n v . Ch e rto ff , 501 F.3d 107, 12 111 (2d Cir. 2007)

. 1 3 S av ch u k

ra i s es s ev er al co n t en t i o n s

. He co rr ec t l y n o t es th atth e B I A h as h el d th atfi n d i n gs 14 of juvenile de linquency are not convictions for immigr ation purposes. See In re De vison15 Charles , 22 I . & N . Dec . 1362 (B .I .A. 2000). Ne x t, Savchuck c ontends that, had the grand 16 larc eny

char g e bee n adjudicate d under f eder al law, be cause of his ag e, he w ould have be en 17 char g ed under

the Fe dera l J uvenile De linquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq . ( “ F JDA” ) b e c a us e 18 the FJDA only

permits the adult prosec ution of a juvenile whe n the offe nse cha rg ed is a c rime of 19 vio le nc e or

a dr ugc ri me and

the re is a su bs tanti a l f

e de ra l inte re st i n th e c a se . Savc hu c k a sse rt s 20 that, h a d h e be e n p ro se c ute d b y fe de ra l a uth or iti e s, the re su lti ngfi nd ingof de lin qu e nc y

wo uld 21 no t ha

ve c ounte d f

or imm ig ratio n p ur

po se s. Th is p os sib ili ty , h e c on te nd s, me ans tha t in thi s 22 fede ral proc eedingwe should look to the FJDA, and not state law , when de cidingwhether the 23 larc eny

conviction counts for

immigration purposes. 24 Whil e Savchuc k’s appr oach is inventive, it finds no support in the text of 8 U.S.C . § 25 11 01 (a )( 48 )( A) wh ic h d e fi ne s “ c onvic tio n” a s: 26 27 a for

mal judgme nt of guilt of the alien ente red by a cour t or, if adjudication 28 of guilt has been withheld, whe re — 29 (i) a judg e or jury has found the a lien g uilty or the a lien has ente red a 30 ple a

of g uil ty or no lo c on te nd e re or

ha s a dmi tte d s uf

fi c ie nt f a c ts t o w arr ant a 31 finding of guilt, and 32 (ii) the judg e has or dere d some form of punishment, pe nalty , or 33 restra int on the alien’s liberty to be imposed. 34 35 The statute e ncompasses state court a djudications and does not sanc tion disreg arding 36 them beca

use of the the oretica l possibil ity that criminal conduc t might be tre ated diff ere ntly by 37 fede ral a

uthorities. Savchuck’ s position has been re jected by the Fir st and Ninth Circuits. See 38 Vi e ra Ga rc ia v . I NS , 239 F.3d 409, 413 ( 1st Cir. 2001) (“Onc e adjudicated by the state c ourt, as 39 e ith e r a

juv e nil e or

an a du lt, we are bo un d b y that de te rm inatio n. ” ); Vargas-Hernande z v. 40 Gonzales , 4 97 F .3 d 9 19 , 9 23 (9 th C ir . 2 00 7) (f ind ing state tr e atme nt o f p e tit ion e r a s a du lt 41 deter

minative). We join these Circuits and hold that, bec ause Savc huk’s g rand la rce ny4 1 conviction qualifies a s a convic tion under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 48)(A) , the B I A cor rec tly found 2 him removable. 3 Savc hu c k a lso c la ims that th e e vid e nc e su bmi tte d b y

the g ov e rnme nt t o p ro ve his 4 conviction was ina dequate . As proof, the g overnme nt submit ted a c omputer print-out by the 5 New Y ork State Division of Criminal J ustice Service s of Savchuc k’s Criminal History (his “ra p 6 sheet” ), a c opy

of the Cer

tificate of Disposition for his petit l arc eny conviction, and a

copy of the 7 S e n t e n c e an d

O r d e r o f C o m m i t m e n tf

o r h i s g r an d l ar c e n y c o n v i c t i o na c c o mp an i e d b y a 8 “ Ce rt if

ic atio n o f R e c or ds ” by

a De pa rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ity Of fi c e r. Th e se do c ume nts , 9 c ou

ple d w iththe fa c t th at Savc hu c k a dmi tte d to the c onvic tio ns in h is t e sti mony , s uf fi c e d to 1 0 p r o v e r e m o v a

b i l i ty. 11 Be cause Savchuck is re movable by rea son of havingcommitted two or more c rimes 12 involving mora l turpitude, we only have jur isdiction to review constitutional claims and 13 questions of law ra ised by Savchuck. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (C) (“ [N] o court shall have 14 jurisdiction to review a ny final orde r of r emoval ag ainst an alien who is removable by rea son of 15 havin gc omm itt e d a c ri min a l of

fe ns e .” ); id . § 1252(a) (2)( D) (“Nothing in subpa ragraph ( B) or 16 (C ), or

in a ny oth e r p ro vis ion

of thi s Ch a pte r .

. . wh ic h li mit s o r e lim inate s ju dic ia l r e vie w, sh a ll 17 be construe d as pre cludingrevie w of c onstitut ional claims or questions of lawraised upon a 18 petition for re view filed w ith an appropr iate cour t of appe als. . . .”). 19 Savchuck r aises no constitutional claims and we find no err ors of law . In seekingasylum 20 and withholding of remova l, Savchuck c laimed member ship in a “social group” sa id to be 21 c omp os e d o f p e op le in Ukr a ine wh o a re “ y oung , c e rt a in t o b e ho me le ss, de po rt e e s su bje c t to 22 arr est and prolong ed dete ntion.” Appellant’s B r. at 50. In In reAc os ta , th e B I A e xpla ine d th at a 23 particula

r social group is one unified by some cha rac teristic that is either ( 1) “be y ond the power 24 of

an in div idu a l to c ha

ng e ” or (2 ) “ so fu

nd ame nta l to ind ivi du a l id e nti ty or c on sc ie nc e that it 2 5 o u g h tn o tb e r e qu i r e d t o b e c h an g e d

. ” 1 9 I. & N

. D e c

. 2 1 1
, 2 3 3 ( B

. I. A

. 1 9 8 5 )

. T h e B IA 26 rea ffirme d the Ac os ta test in 2006 and also held that “a g roup’s ‘visibility ’ — mea ning the extent 27 to which member s of society perc eive those w ith the releva nt char acte ristic as member s of a 28 social g roup — is a fa ctor in dete rmining whether it constitut es a pa

rticular soc ial g roup.” 29 Koudriachova v. Gonzale s , 4 90 F .3 d 2 55 , 2 61 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ); see also In reC-A- , 23 I . & N

. 30 Dec . 951 (B .I .A. 2006). We have previously deter mined that the B I A’s interpr etation of the 31 ambig uous phrase “par ticular socia l gr oup” is rea sonable. Koudriachova , 490 F.3d at 262. 32 Acc ording ly , we hold that the B I A cor rec tly conclude d that the putative g roup propose d by 3 3 S av c hu c k

d o e s n o tp o s s e s s th e c h ar a c t e r i s t i c s r e q u i r e d b y Acosta. 34 An alien is entitled to protec tion under CAT whe n he or she is “more likely than not [t o] 35 . . . be torture d . . . [i n] t he propose d country of re moval.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c )(2) . “The burden 36 of proof

is on the applicant . . . to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be 37 tortured if r emoved to the pr oposed country of re moval.” Id . In In re J -F-F -, the Attorne y 38 Ge ne ra l po int e d o ut t hat lo g ic a lly 39 40 [a] n alien will never be able to show that he fa ces a more likely

than not chanc e of tortur e 41 if one link in the cha in cannot be shown to be more likely than not to occur . I t is the5 1 lik e lih oo d o f a ll n e c e ssa ry e ve nts c omi ngtog e the r t hat mu st m or e lik e ly

tha n n ot l e a d to 2 torture, a

nd a cha in of eve nts cannot be more likely than its least likely

link. 3 In re J

-F-F -, 23 I . & N . Dec . 912, 918 n.4 (AG 2006)

. 4 5 In h is a

pp lic atio n f

or a sylum and wi thh old ingof

re mov a l, S avc hu c k wro te in r e sp on se to 6 the question “a

re you afr aid of be ing subje ct to torture in your home c ountry” that he f ear ed that 7 he would “be subjected to seve re e conomic har dship,” which would re sult in hi m “living on the 8 str e e t,” “ fa ll[in g ] pr e y to t he c ri min a ls a

nd c or ru pt l oc a l g ov e rnme nt o ff

ic ia ls, ” and

make it 9 “impossible . . . to buy food or other

basic life e ssentials,” thus resultingin his death at “a very 10 ear ly

ag e.” Re lying on In re J -F-F- , th e B IA deter

mined that Savchuck’ s “cla im is t oo 11 speculative in that it invol ves a c hain of a ssumptions reg ardingthe re spondent’s potential 12 e c on omi c sit

uatio n in Uk ra ine .” Th is c on c lus ion

wa s c or re c t. 13 14 CO NC LU SION 15 16 For

the fore g oing r easons, the pe tition i s DENI ED. Having c ompleted our re view, any 17 stay

of re moval that the Court previously g rante d in this petit ion is VACATED, and a ny pending 18 mot ion

fo r a sta y of re mov a l in

thi s p e tit ion

is D I SMI SSED a s mo ot. 19 20