Her Yang v. Attorney General United States of America

── Her Yang v. Attorney General United States of America ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 24-3204 ___________ HER TOU YANG, Petitioner v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A072-612-745) Immigration Judge: William H. McDermott ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 1, 2026 Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 8, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Her Tou Yang petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. Yang, a citizen of Laos, entered the United States in 1992 as a refugee and later adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. After being convicted of drug trafficking and firearm charges, Yang was charged as removable as an aggravated felon, for having been convicted of a controlled substance offense, and for having been convicted of a firearms offense. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) sustained the charges of removability, and Yang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After a hearing, at which Yang proceeded pro se, the IJ found Yang ineligible for asylum or withholding due to his convictions and denied CAT relief. The IJ found that Yang had failed to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured at the hands of a government actor or with the acquiescence of a public official if removed to Laos. The IJ found him credible with a subjective fear of removal but that his fear was not objectively supported. He addressed the four bases of possible future torture that Yang asserted. The IJ noted that the evidence showed that there are some significant issues affecting practicing Christians in Laos but that this did not establish a risk of torture. As for Yang’s claim that he would be tortured because his father was allegedly a CIA agent, the IJ observed that no evidence was provided beyond Yang’s belief that his father was 2 with the CIA and that there was no evidence that the Laotian government would know or torture Yang because of his father’s work with the CIA. Yang also suggested that his last name will be associated with a particular Hmong clan that is involved with a lawsuit against Laos before the United Nations. The IJ found that Yang had not shown that he would be tortured if he were to be associated with the lawsuit. Finally, the IJ rejected Yang’s claim that he would be at risk of torture as a Hmong person from the United States. Considering the four grounds in the aggregate, he concluded that Yang had not shown that he would more likely than not experience harm that would constitute torture. Yang appealed. The BIA concluded that the IJ’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and agreed that Yang had not met his burden for relief. Yang then filed his petition for review. We have jurisdiction purs