Clarifying the Threshold for Convention Against Torture Relief: Aggregate Risk and Chain-of-Events Analysis

Introduction

Juan José Paredes Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned the Fourth Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision reversing an Immigration Judge’s grant of deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Paredes arrived in the United States on a tourist visa in 2011, overstayed, and developed a criminal record and visible tattoos. He claimed, based on expert testimony and country‐conditions evidence, that Salvadoran gangs, vigilante death squads, or corrupt officials would torture him upon return because of misinterpreted tattoos, his criminal history, and his mental‐health vulnerabilities. The Fourth Circuit denied relief, affirming that the BIA applied the correct legal standard, properly weighed the evidentiary record, and did not err in concluding Paredes failed to prove the requisite “more likely than not” risk of torture.

Summary of the Judgment

In an unpublished per curiam opinion, a three‐judge panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the BIA’s removal of Paredes. The key holdings are:

The BIA applied the correct legal framework under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) and relevant Fourth Circuit precedents.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Paredes did not demonstrate a clear probability of torture by gangs, extrajudicial groups, or with Salvadoran government acquiescence if removed.
The BIA properly aggregated the cumulative risks of torture and rejected speculation unsupported by individualized evidence.
The BIA acted within its authority in correcting factual errors and did not impermissibly substitute its judgment for the Immigration Judge’s credibility assessments.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision draws on a series of precedents clarifying CAT standards and the scope of BIA review:

Matter of J-F-F- (23 I&N Dec. 912): Emphasizes that risk predictions require a plausible chain of events, not mere speculation.
Nasrallah v. Barr (590 U.S. 573, 2020): Affirms the highly deferential standard for reviewing CAT factual findings.
Singh v. Holder (699 F.3d 321, 2012): Rejects generalized country conditions as insufficient to establish individualized torture risk.
Rodríguez-Arias v. Whitaker (915 F.3d 968, 2019): Requires aggregation of risks from multiple sources when evaluating “more likely than not.”
Ibarra Chevez v. Garland (31 F.4th 279, 2022): Reiterates that BIA may consider overall record and need not specify mathematical probabilities if its reasoning is clear.
Ponce-Flores v. Garland (80 F.4th 480, 2023): Confirms that deference to BIA factual findings applies to evaluations of future mistreatment and government acquiescence.

Legal Reasoning

The Fourth Circuit’s analysis unfolded in two principal steps:

Application of the CAT Standard: Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), an applicant must prove “more likely than not” torture—defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental suffering by or with the consent/acquiescence of public officials. The panel emphasized that speculative fears or anecdotal accounts cannot substitute for individualized proof.
Review of the BIA’s Factual Conclusions: The Court confirmed that it must uphold the BIA’s factual findings unless the record “compels” a contrary conclusion (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). It held that the BIA did not commit clear error in reversing the IJ’s grant of CAT protection because the IJ had relied on generalized country conditions, anecdotes, and assumptions about tattoo meaning without concrete evidence linking those factors to a probable risk of torture for Paredes himself.

In assessing the risk, the BIA first examined each alleged source of torture—gang retaliation, vigilante squads, and state actors—and then evaluated them in aggregate. This methodology aligns with Rodríguez-Arias’s directive to sum multiple risk streams, while still demanding a plausible chain‐of‐events per source under Matter of J-F-F-. The Court rejected Paredes’s contention that the BIA “cherry-picked” evidence or conducted a de novo review, finding instead that the BIA fairly characterized the record, accepted credibility findings, and explained why the overall risk did not meet the “more likely than not” threshold.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision reinforces several key principles for CAT adjudications in the Fourth Circuit:

Aggregate Risk Analysis: Adjudicators must consider cumulative risk from all sources of potential torture, but still require evidence of individualized probability above 50%.
Plausible Chain‐of‐Events: For each alleged source, petitioners must show a coherent sequence of factual events linking them to torture, not mere worst‐case scenarios.
Continued Deference to BIA: The BIA’s factual findings on future torture risk remain highly deferential; they will stand unless no “reasonable adjudicator” could accept them.
Limits on Country‐Conditions Reliance: Broad reports of corruption or generalized violence will not suffice to establish personal risk of torture without tying them to the applicant’s specific circumstances.

Lower courts and immigration judges will look to this decision for guidance on structuring CAT analyses, particularly in cases involving complex interactions of gang violence, extrajudicial groups, and government acquiescence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“More likely than not” standard: A probability threshold exceeding 50%—the level a CAT applicant must meet to obtain protection.
Torture versus mistreatment: Torture involves intent to inflict severe pain or suffering with official involvement or consent. Lesser harms (harassment, beatings) may be real but are not enough under CAT.
Government acquiescence: Public officials know of torture and fail to intervene. Acquiescence can be proven by actual knowledge or willful blindness.
Chain‐of‐Events analysis: A logical series of steps showing that if X happens, then Y follows, culminating in torture—required to show risk is not just speculative.

Conclusion

Juan Alfaro v. Bondi solidifies the Fourth Circuit’s rigorous approach to CAT claims: petitioners must present specific, individualized evidence establishing a plausible pathway to torture and demonstrate that the combined risk from multiple sources crosses the “more likely than not” threshold. The decision underscores the deference owed to BIA factual findings, clarifies the interplay between aggregate risk and chain‐of‐events reasoning, and reaffirms that general country‐condition horrors alone will not satisfy the stringent standard for CAT relief. As a result, this case will shape how courts and agencies evaluate future torture‐based protection claims, ensuring that only those with demonstrable, concrete dangers receive deferral under the Convention Against Torture.