Vinh Nguyen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Vinh Tan Nguyen (“Nguyen”), a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an order of removal entered by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Nguyen argues, inter alia) that the BIA erred in concluding that he was inadmissible for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and that he is entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We conclude that the BIA did not err in determining that Nguyen was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, because the crime of which Nguyen was convicted — misuse of a passport to facilitate an act of international terrorism, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1544 , 2331 — is categorically morally turpitudinous. We also conclude, however, that the record compels the conclusion that Nguyen is more likely than not to be tortured if he is removed to Vietnam. Thus, we grant the petition with respect to Nguyen’s CAT claim, and re *1025 mand with instructions to grant him deferral of removal under CAT.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Whatever else one can say about Nguyen, one cannot doubt his enduring opposition to Vietnamese communism. In 1983, eight…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from Part II of today’s opinion.

The Immigration Judge conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of Vinh Tan Nguyen’s CAT protection claim. After considering the evidence, he issued a 35-page decision denying relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals, in its own lengthy order, also concluded that Nguyen failed to prove that he would more *1034 likely than not be tortured if returned to Vietnam. This is an unusually thorough and carefully explicated agency decision.

My colleagues disagree with the IJ and BIA. I think it’s close. But, under the substantial evidence standard of review, close isn’t good enough. Rather, we may part ways with the BIA only if the record evidence would compel a reasonable adjudicator to do so. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2010); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B).

The majority believes that the Vietnamese government knows about Nguyen’s activities with the Government of Free Vietnam (GFVN). Even if Vietnam is aware of Nguyen’s opposition activities, the BIA provided several persuasive reasons why Nguyen failed to show that he would more likely than not be…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINH TAN NGUYEN, AKA Armando No. 10-71050 Gile Luat, AKA Van Duc Vo, Petitioner, Agency No.

A027-359-701

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

VINH TAN NGUYEN, No. 10-72974 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A027-359-701

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

VINH TAN NGUYEN, AKA Van Duc No. 10-73904 Bo, AKA Armando Gile Luat, Petitioner, Agency No.

A027-359-701

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney OPINION General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 8, 2013—Pasadena, California

Filed August 14, 2014

Before: Harry Pregerson, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Pregerson; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Tallman

SUMMARY*

Immigration

The panel denied in part and granted in part Vinh Tan Nguyen’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, which held that his conviction for misuse of a passport to facilitate an act of international…