Opinion ID: 755345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: 8 The case at bar requires us to apply the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) firm resettlement regulations, 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.14(d)(2) and 208.15, to Vang's stand-alone application for asylum. Although Vang is now a twenty-two year old adult, all relevant events affecting whether or not he was firmly resettled in France occurred before 1991, when at the age of sixteen, he entered the United States with his parents. We therefore treat him as a minor. 9 The applicable INS regulations provide that an applicant who has firmly resettled in another country shall be denied asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(d)(2). Firmly resettled is defined as follows: 10 An alien is considered to be firmly resettled if, prior to arrival in the United States, he entered into another nation with, or while in that nation received, an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement unless he establishes: 11 (a) That his entry into the nation was a necessary consequence of his flight from persecution, that he remained in that nation only as long as was necessary to arrange onward travel, and that he did not establish significant ties in that nation; or 12 (b) That the conditions of his residence in that nation were so substantially and consciously restricted by the authority of the country of refuge that he was not in fact resettled.... 13 8 C.F.R. § 208.15. 14 It is clear from Yang v. INS, 79 F.3d 932, 933 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 83, 136 L.Ed.2d 40 (1996), that when a minor's application is part of a family unit's, the resolution of the parents' application will govern that of the minor members of the family. Yang, however, does not address the circumstances of this case, i.e., where a minor applies for asylum independently rather than as part of a family. See Yang, 79 F.3d at 933 (Petitioners are a Hmong family from Laos.). Moreover, the regulations themselves do not expressly state how they apply to a minor's stand-alone application. 15 Under INS regulations, the child of a refugee or asylee is generally entitled to the same status as his or her parent. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 207.1(e) (refugee status), 208.21(a) (asylee status). We have also followed the unremarkable common law concept that a child's domicile follows that of his or her parents in the section 212(c) context. Lepe-Guitron v. INS, 16 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 14(2) (1969); 25 Am.Jur.2d Domicil 69 (1966)). The reason for this rule is because children are, legally speaking, incapable of forming the necessary intent to remain indefinitely in a particular place. Id. (citing Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989)). In fact, it would be unreasonable to hold an adolescent responsible for arranging or failing to arrange permanent resettlement. Kahssai v. INS, 16 F.3d 323, 327 (9th Cir.1994) (Reinhardt, J., concurring). 16 We follow the same principle in determining whether a minor has firmly resettled in another country, i.e., we look to whether the minor's parents have firmly resettled in a foreign country before coming to the United States, and then derivatively attribute the parents' status to the minor. This approach is consistent with the few BIA cases that have addressed the issue. See, e.g., Matter of Hung, 12 I & N Dec. 178, 1967 WL 13989 (B.I.A.1967) (unemancipated minor residing in household of her parents, whose refugee status has been recognized, held not to have been firmly resettled in Hong Kong after fleeing China); Matter of Ng, 12 I & N Dec. 411, 1967 WL 14047 (B.I.A.1967) (applicant who lived in Hong Kong for 11 years before coming to the United States at age twenty-two held to have firmly resettled in Hong Kong; applicant's father had resettled, and parents' residence imputed to minor). 17 The BIA applied the firm resettlement factors directly to Vang rather than to his parents. Nonetheless, the record fully supports the conclusion that Vang's parents were firmly resettled in France prior to entering the United States in 1991, and that none of the regulatory exceptions applies. Thus, upon attributing to Vang his parents' status as refugees firmly resettled in France prior to entering the United States, we conclude that Vang is ineligible for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(d)(2) (applicant for asylum who has firmly resettled in another country shall be denied asylum) (emphasis added). 18 Vang argues that because his French travel document expired after he entered the United States, France may forbid his return. Vang claims that the BIA therefore erred in finding him to be firmly resettled in France. Vang's position is not persuasive, however, because the fact that Vang allowed his French travel document to expire after he entered the United States cannot alter the disposition of his asylum claim. See Yang, 79 F.3d at 934 (finding firm resettlement despite petitioners' claim that they would no longer be able to return to country of firm resettlement due to expiration of travel documents); see also Abdalla v. INS, 43 F.3d 1397, 1400 (10th Cir.1994) (determining that expiration of petitioner's UAE residence permit after entry into United States did not affect finding that petitioner had firmly resettled in UAE). We consequently affirm the BIA's asylum determination.
19 An alien may not be deported if he can show that, upon deportation, he is more likely than not to face persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). In the order of deportation, the immigration judge stated that Vang should be deported to Thailand, France, or Laos. Vang has not suggested that he would be subject to persecution in either France or Thailand. He is concerned, however, that neither France nor Thailand will accept him, and that he eventually could be forced to enter Laos, where he fears persecution. As the BIA noted, however, Vang has not shown that France would refuse to accept him. Nor has Vang demonstrated that Thailand would forcibly repatriate him to Laos if he were deported to Thailand. 20 Regardless, Vang's argument that he is more likely than not to face persecution should he be deported to Laos is not convincing. None of Vang's family has been in Laos in nearly twenty years. Vang has provided no evidence suggesting that he would be recognized as an enemy by the Laotian government. Moreover, the State Department has reported the successful repatriation of thousands of ethnic Hmong to Laos. In fact, the only Lao citizens who have faced problems upon repatriation have been individuals who held high positions in the pre-1975 government, who have close ties to General Vang Phao, or who are involved in the current insurgency. Because Vang fits into none of the above categories, the decision not to withhold deportation is supported by substantial evidence. 21 Finally, without citing any authority, Vang has requested that the panel remand his case to the immigration judge in order to clarify the deportation order previously issued. Because we find the deportation order to be sufficiently clear, and because Vang has not cited any authority permitting remand in the present case, we decline to remand for clarification. 22 PETITION DENIED.