Individualized Risk Requirement for CAT Relief Established in Ruvira Guerra v. U.S. Attorney General

Introduction

Jose M. Ruvira Guerra, a Cuban national and lawful permanent resident of the United States, sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after admitting removal charges based on past aggravated felony and controlled-substance convictions. He alleged that he was tortured as a teenager in Cuba for distributing anti‐Castro flyers and would face torture again if returned. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and, on appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied CAT relief, concluding that—even accepting his credible testimony of past torture—he had not shown it was “more likely than not” he would be tortured if removed. Guerra petitioned the Eleventh Circuit, which denied his petition for review on May 22, 2025.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit (per curiam) affirmed the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Applying deferential review under the substantial-evidence standard, the court held:

1. Although Guerra proved past torture in Cuba at age 15, decades have passed since his last contact with Cuban authorities, and he lived in Cuba without imprisonment or further torture for approximately ten years before fleeing;
2. Country‐conditions evidence showed continuing human-rights abuses in Cuba generally, but did not establish a “specific and individual” risk of torture for Guerra today;
3. Under CAT regulations (8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)), all relevant evidence must be considered, but the absence of a concrete, individualized threat defeated his burden to show it was more likely than not he would be tortured if removed;
4. The BIA and IJ gave “reasoned consideration” to all arguments and evidence, and their conclusions were supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.”

Accordingly, the petition for review was denied.

Analysis

1. Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Mariel Boatlift Background (United States v. Zayas-Morales, 685 F.2d 1272 (11th Cir. 1982) & United States v. Dominguez, 661 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir. 2011)): Cited only for historical context on the Mariel émigré wave from Cuba.
• Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Provisions:
  • § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) & (iii), § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) (removability grounds for moral-turpitude, drug, aggravated-felony convictions);
  • § 101(a)(43) (aggravated felony definition).
• CAT Regulations (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a), 208.18):
  • Definition of torture and standards for deferral of removal;
  • Requirement to show more likely than not future torture “by, or with the acquiescence of, a public official.”
• Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court Standards (cited in agency’s analysis and reaffirmed on appeal):
  • Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence review);
  • In re J-E, 23 I. & N. Dec. 291 (BIA 2002) (specific intent requirement for CAT);
  • Jeune v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (reasoned consideration);
  • INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (no need to rule on unnecessary issues);
  • Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357 (2021) (credible testimony weighed with other evidence).

2. Legal Reasoning

The court employed a two‐step framework:

1. Standards of Review
   Legal questions were reviewed de novo; factual findings (including the IJ’s determination of risk) were reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard. The BIA’s decision was treated as the agency’s final order; where the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning, the IJ’s analysis was also subject to review.
2. CAT Eligibility Requirements
   Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c), an applicant must show it is “more likely than not” he will be tortured if removed. Relevant factors include:
   • Past torture (evidence of prior severe abuse);
   • Possibility of internal relocation (avoidance through movement within the country);
   • Country conditions (evidence of gross, flagrant, or mass human-rights violations).
   But torture under CAT requires individualized targeting “by, or with the acquiescence of” government actors. Generalized or historic mistreatment is insufficient absent proof of a present, specific threat.

Here, although Guerra’s past torture was undisputed, the IJ and BIA reasonably concluded that:

• He lived in Cuba for ten years post‐torture without further imprisonment or severe abuse;
• Decades have elapsed since his last mistreatment;
• Country reports did not demonstrate that the current Cuban government would single him out for torture today;
• Family members travel freely to Cuba without incident, undermining the inference of ongoing, individualized risk.

The agency’s decision‐by‐decision analysis showed “reasoned consideration”—it addressed Guerra’s arguments, cited relevant statutes and regulations, and explained why his evidence did not meet the CAT standard. Under Supreme Court precedent, even wholly credible testimony may be outweighed by other record evidence.

3. Potential Impact on Future Cases

The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling reinforces key principles for CAT deferral claims:

• Individualized Risk Is Essential – Past torture and generalized country abuses do not alone suffice; applicants must show a current, targeted threat.
• Time Lapse Matters – Long intervening periods without harm can outweigh a history of torture in the risk calculus.
• Deference to Agency Factfinding – IJ/BIA determinations on credibility, risk, and the weight of evidence receive high deference under the substantial-evidence standard.
• Reasoned Consideration Standard Upheld – Agencies must articulate their reasoning clearly, but need not address arguments unnecessary to the ultimate holding.

Practitioners should marshal evidence that ties present‐day government policy to the individual applicant’s circumstances, demonstrating a specific likelihood of torture upon return.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief – A form of protection preventing removal to a country where an individual would likely face severe physical or mental harm inflicted by officials.
• “More Likely Than Not” Standard – Applicant must show a greater than 50% chance of future torture.
• Substantial Evidence Review – Courts uphold agency fact‐finding if supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative” evidence on the record as a whole.
• Reasoned Consideration – Agencies must demonstrate they considered and responded to a petitioner’s key arguments in a way that permits meaningful appellate review.
• Individualized Risk – CAT requires proof that the government will specifically target the applicant, not merely that the country generally abuses human rights.

Conclusion

Ruvira Guerra v. U.S. Attorney General confirms that deferral of removal under the CAT demands a present, individualized threat of torture. Even undisputed past torture and evidence of ongoing human-rights abuses in a country may not suffice if decades of safe stay, lack of targeted persecution, and family travel undermine the predicted risk. This decision emphasizes rigorous agency analysis, deference to fact‐finding, and the heightened burden on applicants to link general country conditions to their personal circumstances. Going forward, CAT claimants must assemble concrete proof of a specific, individualized danger of torture upon return to meet the “more likely than not” threshold.