Anthony Leslie Vincent De Vos; Sharon Dessrie De Vos; D.a.d., Juvenile Male v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY LESLIE VINCENT DE
VOS; SHARON DESSRIE DE VOS;
D.A.D., JUVENILE MALE,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71576
Agency Nos. A095-316-244
A095-316-245
A095-316-246
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, CHRISTEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Anthony De Vos was placed in removal proceedings and filed
applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the
FILED
APR 06 2015
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 4 --

page 2
Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 In 2002, the IJ entered an adverse credibility
finding against De Vos and denied his applications. The BIA affirmed, and we
denied his petition for review. De Vos v. Gonzales, 140 F. App’x 709 (9th Cir.
2005). In 2010, De Vos filed a motion to reopen proceedings on the basis of
changed country conditions in Sri Lanka, which the BIA denied. De Vos petitions
for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. We review for
abuse of discretion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010).
De Vos argues that his proceedings should be reopened because failed
asylum seekers are persecuted as a class in Sri Lanka. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2).
In support of this claim, De Vos points to two Amnesty International bulletins.
The bulletins state that three Sri Lankan men were tortured after their forced return
to Sri Lanka from Australia in 2009.
But the Amnesty bulletins don’t “compel the conclusion that there exists a
pattern or practice of persecution against” former asylum seekers in Sri Lanka.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009). The State Department
Report lists no evidence of persecution of mere failed asylum seekers as a class in
Sri Lanka. Moreover, in contrast to De Vos, the men described in the Amnesty
1 De Vos’s applications include his wife and child, who are also listed as
petitioners here.

-- 2 of 4 --

page 3
bulletins were crew members of a boat carrying Sri Lankans to Australia, and at
least one of them was accused of organizing such groups. The BIA thus didn’t
abuse its discretion in finding that this evidence didn’t warrant reopening of De
Vos’s proceedings on the basis that he would be persecuted in Sri Lanka as a
member of a class of failed asylum seekers. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061; see
also Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008).
De Vos also submitted additional evidence that, he alleges, supports his
claims that he would be persecuted in Sri Lanka due to his status as a member of
the United National Party. He alleges that the conditions in Sri Lanka have
worsened since his initial application and that reopening of his proceedings is
therefore warranted. But the IJ and BIA previously rejected these claims and
concluded that De Vos was not credible. De Vos’s motion to reopen doesn’t
challenge the IJ’s prior adverse credibility determination—a determination that we
found to be supported by substantial evidence. De Vos, 140 F. App’x at 710. The
adverse credibility findings “went to key elements of” De Vos’s claims, including
identity and membership in a persecuted group. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA therefore didn’t abuse its discretion in
denying De Vos’s motion to reopen on the basis of this additional evidence.

-- 3 of 4 --

page 4
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --