Vincent Aseervatham v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT ASEERVATHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73666
Agency No. A089-245-077
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 16, 2012
Honolulu, Hawaii
Submission Deferred October 17, 2012
Resubmitted September 5, 2013
Before: REINHARDT, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Vincent Aseervatham petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
FILED
SEP 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the history of the
case, we need not recount it here.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Aseervatham
provided material support to a terrorist organization and is therefore ineligible for
asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). Aseervatham provided computer
support for the Liberation Tiger Tamil Eelam, a designated terrorist organization.
Communications support is among the examples given in the statute of prohibited
support activities. Id. Aseervatham’s claim that the statute does not apply because
he acted under duress is foreclosed by Annachamy v. Holder, __F.3d __, 2013 WL
4405687, at *9 (9th Cir. July 3, 2012).
Aseervatham’s departure from the United States has rendered moot his
claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. 8 CFR §§ 1241.7, 1208.16(f).1
PETITION DENIED.
1This case is hereby resubmitted for decision. Petitioner’s motion for
judicial notice is denied. See Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996).
Respondent’s motion to exceed the word limit for the letter brief ordered by this
Court is denied as moot. See Ninth Cir. R. 32-3(1).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --