Her Tou Yang, a citizen of Laos and lawful permanent resident of the United States, faced removal proceedings after being convicted of drug trafficking and firearm offenses. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge found Yang ineligible for asylum and withholding due to his criminal convictions. Regarding CAT relief, the IJ found that while Yang was credible in his subjective fear, he failed to meet the objective burden of proof. The IJ determined that Yang did not show it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by a government actor or with the acquiescence of a public official in Laos. The IJ specifically addressed four potential grounds for torture: persecution of Christians, his father's alleged work with the CIA, his clan's involvement in a lawsuit against the Laotian government, and his status as a Hmong person. The IJ concluded that none of these grounds, individually or in aggregate, established a sufficient risk of torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ's decision, and Yang petitioned the Third Circuit for review.
The Third Circuit reviewed the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence, a standard that makes those findings conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. The court analyzed Yang's specific arguments against the administrative record. First, regarding Christianity, the court noted that Yang did not raise this specific claim before the IJ. Even considering the evidence, the IJ found that mistreatment of Christians in Laos does not rise to the level of torture, and Yang provided no evidence compelling a different finding. Second, concerning his father's alleged CIA work, the court emphasized that Yang offered no evidence in the record that Laotian authorities would know of this or torture him because of it. The court reiterated that it can only decide on evidence in the administrative record, not external information cited from other cases. Third, regarding his Hmong ethnicity and clan lawsuit, the court found that the alleged crimes of other Hmong persons do not compel a finding that Yang would be tortured. Fourth, the court addressed Yang's argument that the IJ failed to aggregate risks from multiple sources. The court clarified that the IJ only considered risks from government actors because Yang alleged only government-sponsored torture. Since Yang did not allege fear from private actors or religious leaders before the agency, the IJ and BIA did not err in failing to aggregate those risks. Finally, the court rejected Yang's claim that he was denied an opportunity to provide corroboration, noting that the IJ explicitly asked Yang to explain the lack of documents and gave him opportunities to address weaknesses in his claim.
The denial of CAT relief stands, meaning Yang remains subject to removal to Laos. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that petitioners must provide evidence within the administrative record to support their claims. It also clarifies that the aggregation of risk is limited to the specific grounds of persecution actually alleged by the petitioner during the administrative process. No remand instructions were issued as the petition was denied.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download