I'm curious, why do you say that it "sucks" to be a US permanent resident asian male? As a US permanent resident, you are treated as a domestic student as the department will only be charged extra for your tuition the way an international student would. Also, a large number of your schools listed do not charge a different rate for international student tuition.
In addition, Asian males already have an advantage in admissions (I am also an Asian male but a Canadian so I am an international student). We (Asian males) are generally over-represented in our field (http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/ ... ce-07.html
). Of course, it's much more complicated than this single plot. For example, Asian-Americans are still a minority group in both the field and the country and one thing I've noticed is that I can very often count all of the Asian scientists in my field giving talks at a conference with my two hands---e.g. at the recent big conference for my field, out of ~110 speakers, there were 7 Asian men and 1 Asian woman speaker (and this was an international conference where many of the Asian speakers came from outside of the US and also lumps all ethnicities within Asia together).
I don't want to get too far off topic here, but I just want to point out that I don't think your response to "Type of student" would put you at any disadvantage (so I don't think it "sucks"). I personally feel that this 'standard' profile form needs to be updated (it's almost 10 years old now) because it makes simplifications and distorts some factors about admissions, especially those related to diversity. For example, I feel it promotes the harmful
and incorrect view that it's somehow "easier" to get into graduate school if you are an under-represented minority or a woman. Aside from being false, it also adds to the microaggressions that our women/minority colleagues experience in the community, and basically causes harm to academia, in my opinion. It would be similar to someone saying that your PGRE 990 is worth less because you are of Asian descent!
Anyways, back to your original question. My opinion is no, you do not need more safety schools. A safety school is supposed to be one where you are basically certain that you'll get in (>95%). I'm not in your subfield so I don't know which of the schools you list are safety schools. However, my answer to almost everyone who asks if they need "more" is generally no, because my philosophy is that you only need 1, maybe 2 safety schools. Since you know that you will get into a safety school (otherwise it's not a safety school), you can pick ahead of time which schools interest you the most. Don't apply to a safety school that you are not sure about just because you want to ensure you get accepted into it!
That is, I don't think the goal of an application season is to get as many acceptances as possible. In fact, unless you are already applying to the best schools for you (in terms of fit etc.), I think if you get into more than half of your schools, it may mean that you didn't aim high enough! It's worth much more, to get into 2 of your top choices and not much else, than to get into a large number of schools that you are less interested in.
So, unless you only have one safety school and you're not sure if you will really like that school once you visit, don't add any more. If you are not happy with your current safety school, maybe consider switching it with another safety school that you would prefer to attend instead. But don't apply to something like 3 or 4 safety schools---surely even at this stage you could identify which 1 or 2 safety school you would prefer to be at, assuming you get into all safety schools (which, again, is the definition of such a school).
This is my own opinion on applying to grad school which works for me. I'm not saying that everyone must follow this, just sharing my thoughts to help you find what you want to do