United States v. 2010-10-14 | 06-72759 | THAOCHEUCHING V. HOLDER | nonprecedential | memorandum…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral**
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for the***
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PACHAY THAOCHEUCHING; ) No. 06-72759
KAYING VANG, )
) Agency Nos. A079-587-391
Petitioners, ) A079-587-392
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney )
General, )
)
Respondent. )
)
Petition to Review an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 4, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY,***
District Judge.
FILED
OCT 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

Because Vang’s claim is derivative of Thaocheuching’s claim, we will1
discuss Thaocheuching’s claim, but our conclusions apply equally to hers.
8 U.S.C. § 1158.2
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).3
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or4
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No.
100–20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 208.18).
2
Pachay Thaocheuching and his wife Kaying Vang, natives and citizens of1
Laos, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against2 3
Torture (CAT) relief. We deny the petition.4
The BIA’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum must be
upheld if “‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record considered as a whole.’” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.
Ct. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). “It can be reversed only if the evidence
presented . . . was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the
requisite fear of persecution existed.” Id.; see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). When an alien seeks to overturn the BIA’s adverse
determination, “he must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483–84, 112 S. Ct. at 817. When an asylum claim is

-- 2 of 4 --

Indeed, Thaocheuching concedes as much by failing to raise the issue in his5
briefs. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).
See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976–77 (9th Cir. 2009).6
Thaocheuching asserts that his due process rights were violated because7
there were errors in translation at his hearings before the immigration judge.
Errors in translation can result in a violation. See Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d
773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). But prejudice must be shown, and none has been shown
here. See Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 824, 830 (9th Cir. 2002); Kotasz v.
INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994); Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1063
(9th Cir. 1993). Similarly, no prejudice arising from questioning of Vang by the
(continued...)
3
involved, an alien must show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution that is “subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.”
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc); see also Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006).
Thaocheuching has not met that burden. On the contrary, the evidence did
not compel a determination that he was persecuted in the past. See Sinha v.
Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009); Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441
F.3d 739, 743–44 (9th Cir. 2006). Neither a brief questioning, nor a land issue, nor
even reports that there were threats against him rise to that level. By the same5
token, the evidence does not compel a finding that he has a well-founded fear of
future persecution because of his activities before the present regime gained power6
in Laos some 35 years ago.7

-- 3 of 4 --

(...continued)7
immigration judge has been shown, even though that questioning may have been
questionable. See Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir. 1999)
(prejudice must be shown); Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1469 (9th Cir.
1986) (same).
4
Because the BIA determined that Thaocheuching did not meet the
requirements for a grant of asylum, it properly determined that he did not meet the
requirements for withholding of removal either. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390
F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004); Fisher, 79 F.3d at 960–61, 965.
Finally, the evidence in the record does not compel a determination that it is
more likely than not that Thaocheuching would be tortured in Laos. Thus, he is
not entitled to CAT relief. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th
Cir. 2009); Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petition DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --