§ 3.8 V. Convention Against Torture
For more text, click "Next Page>"
Unless a CMT conviction is also an aggravated felony, a noncitizen convicted of a CMT should be eligible for other forms of relief, such as asylum, and should not need to apply for relief under CAT.
The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which prohibits sending a person back to a country where s/he is likely to be tortured. The relief granted includes withholding of removal under the Convention (different from withholding under the Act), or, if the person has been convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” the relief includes “deferral” of removal to the country. Even though a noncitizen granted deferral under the CAT will escape forced return to the country of torture, it is possible that s/he will remain in indefinite detention here in the United States. The removal order remains in effect, and can be executed if conditions change so the CAT no longer applies to prevent removal. An aggravated felony conviction will not bar “deferral,” but may be considered a “particularly serious crime,” which would bar CAT withholding of removal.
 In Matter of YL, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002), the Attorney General held that the applicant must demonstrate that the torture feared would be inflicted by or with the acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, following Matter of SV, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000); Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2003) (noncitizen not entitled to CAT since he failed to establish that he is “more likely than not” to be tortured if returned to China).
 See N. Tooby & J. Rollin, Criminal Defense of Immigrants § 24.31 (4th ed. 2007)
 8 C.F.R. § 208.17(b)(1)(ii), (c). But see Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (2001), discussed at N. Tooby & J. Rollin, Criminal Defense of Immigrants § 15.21 (4th ed. 2007)
RELIEF - CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE - STANDARD OF REVIEW
Kaplun v. Holder, 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. Apr. 9, 2010) (BIA erred in applying de novo review to determination of whether noncitizen would be tortured; BIA should have applied clearly erroneous standard).
MOTION TO REOPEN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS " CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014) (the specific time and number limitations on motions to reopen, 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c), apply to motions to reopen that arise under the Convention Against Torture).
RELIEF - CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
Williams v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (publication in federal register of deadline upon which noncitizen previously ordered removed could move to reopen in order to apply for CAT, a new form of relief, was sufficient notice of deadline; noncitizen did not have right to actual notice of the deadline).
RELIEF " DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL " RECONSIDERATION
Matter of CCI, 26 I&N Dec. 375 (BIA 2014) (reopening of removal proceedings for a de novo hearing to consider termination of an aliens deferral of removal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1208.17(d)(1), is warranted where the Government presents evidence that was not considered at the previous hearing relevant to the possibility that the alien will be tortured in the country to which removal has been deferred). http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol26/3810.pdf