Clarifying the “Particularly Serious Crime” Standard and CAT Deferral in Withholding of Removal Proceedings

Introduction

Jimenez v. Bondi (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2025) involves Dayvid De Oliveira Jimenez, a Brazilian national and aggravated‐felony deportee, who challenged four separate Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions: denial of continuance, denial of asylum/withholding of removal/Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, denial of reconsideration, and denial of reopening and administrative closure. The key legal questions include (1) whether Jimenez’s Connecticut conviction for second‐degree strangulation qualifies as a “particularly serious crime” barring withholding of removal; (2) whether he carried his burden for deferral of removal under the CAT; and (3) procedural challenges to continuance, remand, reopening, reconsideration, and in forma pauperis status on a collateral petition.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit denied review of three consolidated petitions and dismissed a fourth petition for review.
It held that Jimenez’s strangulation conviction is a “particularly serious crime” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) because it targets a person, and that a suspended sentence still counts as “imprisonment” under INA § 101(a)(48)(B).
The court affirmed the denial of withholding of removal and dismissed review of the denial of asylum, noting asylum ineligibility based on an aggravated felony.
It upheld the denial of deferral under the CAT on the ground that Jimenez failed to prove more‐likely‐than‐not torture or government acquiescence.
The court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of a continuance, remand, reopening, or reconsideration, and refused in forma pauperis status on the two‐year‐old collateral petition as having no arguable basis in law or fact.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii)–(iv): Particularly serious crime bar to withholding of removal.
In re N-A-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336 (BIA 2007): Two‐step analysis for particularly serious crimes.
Nethagani v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2008): Factors bearing on seriousness and dangerousness.
Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) & Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005): Review of IJ decisions as modified by the BIA.
Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (2020) & Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569 (2d Cir. 2021): Jurisdictional limits on review of CAT and withholding claims.
Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357 (2021): Credibility and record contradictions.
Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2006) & Sibrun, 18 I. & N. Dec. 354 (BIA 1983): Continuance and prejudice standards.
Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024): Overruling Chevron deference in agency interpretation.

Legal Reasoning

1. Particularly Serious Crime: Because Jimenez’s strangulation offense “targets a person,” it “potentially” falls within the particularly serious category. Although his three-year sentence was suspended, INA § 101(a)(48)(B) deems any imposed term of imprisonment as incarceration. The BIA applied the two-step In re N-A-M- framework, considered the nature and circumstances of the crime and the sentencing record, and held that strangulation is a crime against the person that indicates a danger to the community. Once that threshold is met, no separate dangerousness finding is required.

2. CAT Deferral: A CAT applicant must show that it is “more likely than not” he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of public officials. The IJ found Jimenez’s two childhood police‐beating allegations not credible (omitted from the counsel-prepared application) and concluded that gang threats made more than five years earlier—directed only to his grandmother’s home—did not establish a real future torture risk. Substantial‐evidence review upheld those findings.

3. Procedural Motions (Continuance, Remand, Reopening, Reconsideration): The court found no abuse of discretion in calendar management or in denying new‐evidence motions. An expert report on Brazilian gangs would not have changed the inevitable finding that the earlier threats were stale and localized. Jimenez’s ineffective-counsel claims were forfeited for failing to comply with BIA’s Matter of Lozada requirements.

Impact

Confirms that suspended sentences count as “imprisonment” in the particularly serious crime analysis under INA § 101(a)(48)(B).
Reinforces the In re N-A-M- two-step framework and confirms no separate overall dangerousness finding is required once an offense is deemed particularly serious.
Highlights the burden on CAT applicants to present timely, credible, and particularized evidence of future torture risk and acquiescence.
Illustrates the strict procedural requirements for motions to reopen/remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel and the high bar for continuance/prejudice claims.
Clarifies that summary orders, while non-precedential, can embody important guidance on discretionary and statutory standards in removal proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Aggravated Felony "Particularly Serious Crime" Bar: Noncitizens convicted of certain crimes are barred from withholding of removal if their crime is “particularly serious.” The BIA uses a two-step test: (1) does the crime’s elements place it in the “particularly serious” category? (2) consider evidence (record, sentence, circumstances) to confirm seriousness.
Chelsea vs. Chevron Deference: Courts long deferred to BIA’s reasonable interpretations of immigration statutes (Chevron). Loper Bright overruled that deference, but upheld prior agency actions under “statutory stare decisis.”
Withholding vs. Asylum: Asylum is discretionary and available for those without aggravated felonies; withholding is mandatory if statutory criteria are met—but barred for particularly serious crime convicts.
CAT Deferral: Even aggravated-felony convicts may seek deferral of removal to a country in which they would face torture with official acquiescence.
In Forma Pauperis (IFP): Allows fee waiver for indigent litigants, but courts screen IFP petitions for any nonfrivolous legal or factual basis.

Conclusion

Jimenez v. Bondi consolidates and clarifies key standards for withholding of removal and CAT deferral. It reinforces that:

Crimes against persons are highly likely to be deemed “particularly serious.”
Suspended sentences count toward the five‐year “aggravated felony” imprisonment threshold.
CAT deferral demands a stringent, particularized showing of future torture and government acquiescence.
Procedural motions (continuance, remand, reopening, reconsideration) face exacting standards, and ineffective-counsel claims require strict compliance with Matter of Lozada.

This summary order, though non-precedential, offers important guideposts for immigration practitioners navigating the interplay of criminal convictions, statutory bars, evidentiary burdens, and procedural safeguards in removal proceedings.