## Facts

- Vinh Tan Nguyen, a native and citizen of Vietnam, entered the United States as a refugee and later became a lawful permanent resident.
- Nguyen became a prominent member of the anti-communist exile organization “Government of Free Vietnam” and engaged in political activities opposing Vietnam’s communist government.
- Nguyen was convicted in federal court of misuse of a passport to facilitate an act of international terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 1544, with “international terrorism” defined by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2331.
- The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings based on the conviction.
- An Immigration Judge found Nguyen inadmissible/removable on the ground that the conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and denied protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the CIMT determination and denied CAT relief.
- Nguyen petitioned for review, challenging the CIMT ruling and denial of CAT deferral of removal.

## Issues

1. Whether misuse of a passport to facilitate an act of international terrorism under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1544 and 2331 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes.
2. Whether the record compelled the conclusion that Nguyen was more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Vietnam, warranting CAT deferral of removal.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition as to the CIMT issue, holding the offense is categorically a CIMT.
- The court granted the petition as to CAT, holding the record compelled the conclusion that Nguyen was more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Vietnam.
- The court remanded with instructions to grant CAT deferral of removal.

## Legal Principles

- Under the categorical approach, a conviction qualifies as a CIMT if the minimum conduct criminalized by the statute necessarily involves morally turpitudinous behavior.
- Misuse of a passport to facilitate “international terrorism,” as defined by statute to involve violent or dangerous acts intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or a government, is categorically morally turpitudinous.
- CAT protection requires proof that it is more likely than not the applicant would be tortured if removed, and that the torture would be inflicted by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.
- When the administrative record compels the conclusion that the CAT standard is met, the court must grant relief and remand for entry of CAT protection.
- CAT deferral of removal may be granted even where the applicant is removable based on a serious criminal conviction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the agency’s classification of Nguyen’s terrorism-facilitating passport-misuse conviction as a CIMT supporting removability, but ordered CAT deferral because the evidence compelled the conclusion that he faced a greater-than-50% likelihood of torture by or with official involvement if returned to Vietnam.


Nguyen v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2014)