KIMHENG TUON V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-74857 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 12 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS KIMHENG TUON, AKA Kimcheng Tuon, No. 08-74857 Agency No. A098-456-573 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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.*** * 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. Kimheng Tuon, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) decision affirming the immigration judge s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.1 We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Tuon does not contend that she suffered past persecution, and substantial evidence supports the BIA s determination that she failed to establish a wellfounded fear of future persecution. Tuon credibly testified that she subjectively feared she would be persecuted for her parents political opinions or to exert pressure on her parents. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2006). However, she failed to provide any supporting evidence of a well-founded, objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because the record indicated that 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(2)(D) allows for review of questions of law, which has been interpreted to include mixed questions of law and fact. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Because the IJ made no express adverse credibility determination, any view of the historical facts to which the petitioner testified necessarily establishes that, as she swore under oath, she filed the application within one year of arrival. Lin v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Khunaverdiants v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 760, 765 (9th Cir. 2008)). 2 she lacked knowledge of Cambodian politics or her parents political activities. See id. Mere speculation and feelings of fear are not enough to satisfy this requirement. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ( Vague and conclusory allegations of fear for [her] life . . . are clearly insufficient to support a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution. ). The BIA properly ruled that she failed to meet her burden of proof to show entitlement to asylum. Because Tuon failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s denial of CAT relief because Tuon failed to establish that, if returned to Cambodia, it would be more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official or a person acting in an official capacity. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
