Hang Veng; Sambath Chem v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* 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).
*** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HANG VENG; SAMBATH CHEM,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74689
Agency Nos. A095-195-263
A095-195-264
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 10, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District
Judge.***
Hang Veng and his spouse, Sambeth Chem, petition for review from the
BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
FILED
APR 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Chem seeks review as the derivative beneficiary of Veng’s claim and did
not file a separate application. Therefore, our denial of Veng’s petition necessarily
forecloses the potential for relief on her claim.
2 Known interchangeably as 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)(B) and INA §
241(b)(3)(B).
2
Against Torture (“CAT”).1 They sought relief on the basis of Veng’s political
opinion and related association with an armed insurgent organization. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
evidence. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Veng “engaged in a
terrorist activity” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) by
“gather[ing] information” and providing “material support.” See 8 U.S.C. §§
1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(III), (VI). An alien who has engaged in a terrorist activity is
ineligible for asylum. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(v), 1227(a)(4)(B).
Additionally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that he poses a security threat to the United
States, making him ineligible for withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§1231 (b)(3)(B)(iv). Furthermore, because a subsection of that statute 2 applies,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
denial of withholding of removal under CAT is required. 8 C.F.R. §
1208.16(d)(2).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that
Veng failed to show that even as a former member of an insurgent organization, he
is “more likely than not” to be tortured if removed to the designated country. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). Thus, Veng is also ineligible for deferral of removal under
CAT. Id.; Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --