Convention Against Torture (CAT)

786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) · 2015

CAT protection requires showing the government would acquiesce in torture; the 9th Circuit clarified the acquiescence standard, holding that a government's willful blindness to torture can constitute acquiescence.

En banc. Clarified government acquiescence standard for CAT claims.

29 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2025) · 2025

Applicant who cooperated with U.S. law enforcement against a cartel did not demonstrate a clear probability of torture where fear was based on unsubstantiated statements from a coconspirator and generalized evidence of cartel violence rather than individualized risk.

Underscores that CAT protection requires an individualized risk, not merely generalized country violence even for informants against organized crime.

29 I&N Dec. 717 (BIA 2026) · 2026

(1) Conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance under Pennsylvania law is a particularly serious crime, barring both asylum and withholding. (2) Respondent did not establish CAT eligibility where past mistreatment in Jamaica based on sexual orientation was by private individuals and she did not show a public official would acquiesce to future torture.

Drug trafficking convictions are routinely found to be particularly serious crimes. CAT claims based on private actors require government acquiescence — general societal homophobia without state involvement is insufficient.