Summary
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection for a Nepalese respondent. The decision distinguishes the CAT acquiescence standard from the asylum unable-or-unwilling standard, ruling that speculation regarding police inability to prevent private violence does not satisfy the requirement for official acquiescence. Applying Fifth Circuit precedent, the Board concluded the respondent failed to meet his burden of proof after failing to report past harm to authorities and lacking evidence of government willful blindness.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the respondent satisfied the CAT acquiescence requirement for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
- Whether the respondent satisfied the burden for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA.
Holdings
- The Board affirms the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the respondent has not met his burden to show that public officials are more likely than not to acquiesce to his torture.
- The Board affirms the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, finding the respondent did not establish past persecution nor that the Nepalese government is unable or unwilling to protect him.
Key quotations
“The acquiescence standard for protection under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture differs from the unable-or-unwilling standard for asylum and withholding of removal; the potential for private actor violence coupled with a speculation that police cannot or will not help is insufficient to prove acquiescence.” (61)
“We affirm the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the respondent has not met his burden for protection under the CAT.” (63)
Factual background
The respondent, a native of Nepal, alleged that members of the Maoist Party assaulted and threatened him because of his political opinion. He did not report the incidents to police, asserting that police were corrupt and unlikely to act. He claimed fear of future persecution and that Nepalese officials would acquiesce to torture.
Procedural history
The respondent appealed the Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The Board affirmed the IJ on February 20, 2024. The Fifth Circuit remanded on June 13, 2024 for further consideration of future persecution and CAT state‑action requirement. The Board now dismisses the appeal.