Nhek v. Holder
Docket: No. 05-73776
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 5, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Somnang Nhek, a Thai national, has petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (IJ) decision that denied his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court retains jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and ultimately denies the petition for review. The court rejects the government's claim that Nhek's conviction for an aggravated felony precludes jurisdiction over his appeal regarding withholding of removal and CAT relief, citing Bromfield v. Mukasey, which allows jurisdiction when an IJ denies these requests on the merits. It affirms that Nhek remains subject to removal despite potential issues with his refugee status, referencing Kaganovich v. Gonzales, which establishes that refugees can be removed regardless of the current status of their refugee designation. The IJ's finding that Nhek did not demonstrate a likelihood of persecution upon returning to Cambodia is supported by substantial evidence, aligning with Nahrvani v. Gonzales, which deemed speculative evidence insufficient for claims of future persecution. Furthermore, the IJ's conclusion that Nhek did not show he would likely face torture by or with the acquiescence of the Cambodian government is also backed by substantial evidence, as established in Theagene v. Gonzales, which noted that a general risk of detention does not qualify for CAT protection. The court's final ruling is that the petition for review is denied, with the disposition marked as not suitable for publication and not establishing precedent, except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.