Fiddler v. Bondi: Clarifying the “Symbiotic” Link Between Specific-Intent and Proscribed-Purpose in CAT Claims

Introduction

In David Japheth Fiddler v. Pamela J. Bondi (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025, No. 24-2604) the Seventh Circuit denied a Jamaican citizen’s petition for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals twice rejected his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The case revolves around whether Jamaican police violence against the mentally ill, combined with harsh prison conditions and vigilante attacks, meets CAT’s stringent requirements of “torture.”

The decision is significant because it crystallises a new doctrinal clarification: the court expressly recognises that CAT’s “specific-intent” and “proscribed-purpose” prongs are interdependent rather than discrete elements that can be satisfied in isolation. This clarification tightens the evidentiary burden for future CAT applicants who rely on statistical or systemic violence without proof of an intent to deliberately inflict severe pain for an illicit purpose.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed the BIA’s finding that Mr Fiddler failed to show it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if removed to Jamaica.
Key holdings:
- No evidence of specific intent by Jamaican police or prison officials to inflict severe pain on mentally ill deportees.
- Statistical police violence and poor prison conditions, without proof of deliberate design, show “brutality” but not “torture.”
- No proof of government “acquiescence” or willful blindness to vigilante harm; authorities investigated and prosecuted cited incidents.
Result: Petition for review DENIED.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

In re J-E-, 23 I.&N. Dec. 291 (BIA 2002) – Cornerstone CAT precedent establishing the “extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment” threshold and the need for specific intent. The Seventh Circuit used J-E-’s prison-conditions rationale to reject Fiddler’s prison-torture theory.
Bopaka v. Garland, 123 F.4th 552 (1st Cir. 2024) – Identified “proscribed purpose” as an analytic component. The panel borrows Bopaka’s phrasing but stresses the overlap with intent.
Lozano-Zuniga v. Lynch, 832 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2016) – Stands for the proposition that “generalised violence” is insufficient. Re-applied to dismiss statistical evidence of police shootings.
Sumba-Yunga v. Garland, No. 23-3046, 2024 WL 4930396 (7th Cir. 2024) – Reaffirms that returning to a dangerous country alone does not make a CAT claim.
Oxygene v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2016), Matter of J-R-G-P-, 27 I.&N. Dec. 482 (BIA 2018), and Escobar v. Garland, 55 F.4th 662 (8th Cir. 2022) – All address poor detention conditions lacking purposeful intent; used to analogise Jamaican prisons.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Interdependence of Intent & Purpose
The panel adopts the BIA’s description of a “symbiotic relationship” between CAT’s two mental-state components:

Specific intent – Conscious objective to inflict severe pain.
Proscribed purpose – Illicit motive (punishment, discrimination, coercion, etc.).

By treating them together, the court avoided the petitioner’s strategy of satisfying intent merely by showing the natural consequence of a police shooting while using discrimination to prove purpose. Instead, the court required proof that the officer’s objective was to impose severe pain on the mentally ill because they are mentally ill.

b. Application to Non-Custodial Police Violence
The evidence (19 % of police shootings involve mentally ill people) lacked context of intentional targeting. Officers responded to immediate threats; therefore force was for a “permissible law-enforcement purpose,” not torture.

c. Application to Prison Conditions
Even if Jamaican prisons are life-threatening, substandard conditions arise from “stigma, lack of training, and lack of resources,” not an orchestrated plan to torture.

d. Government Acquiescence to Vigilante Harm
CAT requires awareness and breach of a legal duty to intervene. Because authorities investigated and prosecuted vigilante attackers, acquiescence was not proven.

3. Potential Impact

Higher Evidentiary Bar – Applicants must now link statistical violence to proof of intent and illicit motive by state actors.
Clarifies Analytical Method – Immigration judges in the Seventh Circuit are guided to analyse intent and purpose jointly, especially in police-brutality and prison-conditions cases.
Mentally-Ill Deportees – Makes CAT relief harder where harm stems from systemic neglect rather than deliberate targeting.
National Uniformity – Aligns the Seventh Circuit with the Fourth, Eighth, and First Circuits, reducing forum shopping on CAT mental-state standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CAT (Convention Against Torture): An international treaty requiring signatories not to return (“refoule”) anyone to a country where they face a probability (“more likely than not”) of torture.
Deferral vs. Withholding of Removal: Both are CAT protections; deferral (Mr Fiddler’s relief) is available even to aggravated felons but is easier for DHS to terminate if circumstances change.
Specific Intent: The perpetrator must want to cause severe pain, not merely know pain will result.
Proscribed Purpose: The pain must be for an illicit reason (punishment, coercion, discrimination, etc.).
Acquiescence / Willful Blindness: Government officials know about private torture and consciously refuse to stop it.

Conclusion

Fiddler v. Bondi cements a sharpened standard in CAT jurisprudence: statistical or systemic brutality is insufficient without concrete proof that state actors specifically intend to inflict severe pain and do so for a forbidden purpose. By expressly declaring the two mental-state requirements “symbiotic,” the Seventh Circuit closes what it perceived as a loophole whereby applicants could satisfy each prong independently with weaker evidence.

Going forward, counsel representing CAT applicants—particularly those asserting persecution based on mental illness, disability, or other vulnerable statuses—must assemble granular, actor-specific evidence of intentional targeting and governmental complicity. Conversely, DHS and immigration courts now possess a clarified doctrinal roadmap for assessing intent, purpose, and acquiescence in CAT cases.