Takhsh v. Holder , 403 F. App'x 179 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND TAKHSH, No. 06-73809
SHERVINA TAKHSH,
Agency Nos. A76-369-012, A76-
Petitioners, 369-011
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review from Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 3, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: RYMER and ALARCON, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER, *** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Ramond Takhsh and his sister Shervina Takhsh petition for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying them withholding
of removal to the United Kingdom. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny their petition.
In their petition for review, petitioners claim that the exclusion of
dependents from derivative status for withholding of removal is unconstitutional.
Specifically, petitioners argue that Congress' decision to provide derivative relief to
the dependents of asylum recipients but not to the dependents of withholding of
removal recipients violates equal protection. Aside from the lack of merit in this
argument, petitioners do not have standing to raise this claim because a favorable
ruling from this court would not redress petitioners' removability to the United
Kingdom.
To meet the requirements for constitutional standing, a party must
demonstrate, among other factors, a likelihood that a favorable decision will
redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Even assuming that this court found that the lack of derivative withholding of
removal violates equal protection, petitioners' removability to the United Kingdom
would still not be redressed. Notably, withholding of removal is a country-
specific remedy and only forbids removal to the country of persecution. See
2
Immigration and Nationality Act § 241(b)(3)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see
also I.N.S. v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 419 (1999). Here, petitioners'
parents were granted withholding of removal specifically to Iran, and not to the
United Kingdom. Petitioners, however, are requesting withholding of removal to
the United Kingdom, and in fact concede that, as citizens of the United Kingdom,
there is no threat that they will be sent to Iran or that they will suffer persecution if
removed to the United Kingdom. Thus, even if petitioners were granted the same
withholding of removal as their parents, that is, to Iran, they would still be
removable to the United Kingdom. Therefore, because petitioners fail to show that
a favorable decision on this issue would have any bearing on their removability to
the United Kingdom, they lack standing to bring their equal protection claim.
Petitioners also argue that the I-589, the application for asylum and
withholding of removal, violates due process because the I-589, which combines
both types of claims into a single form, misled petitioners into believing that
derivative relief was available for withholding of removal even though such relief
is only available for asylum. To succeed in a due process claim, an alien must
show, inter alia, "that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the
alleged violation." Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
Petitioners cannot show any such prejudice because even if they had filed
3
individual applications they still would not have been eligible for withholding of
removal to the United Kingdom. Specifically, petitioners do not allege any
persecution in the United Kingdom. As such, their petition is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4