Asylum Sent Back for Another Decision: What Happens to the CAT Denial?

A court sending your asylum case back does not necessarily send every claim back. Read the result for each form of protection. A decision may require another asylum and withholding ruling while leaving the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in place.

Start with what the court ordered

Look for the court’s disposition and the explanation immediately supporting it. Which part of the petition was granted? Which part was denied? What must the agency reconsider? A summary saying only that you won an appeal can hide those distinctions.

In Silva-Cruz v. Blanche, No. 25-7120 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2026), the court required the agency to reconsider asylum and withholding under the correct test for the connection between persecution and a protected ground. It separately upheld the CAT denial. The nonprecedential memorandum shows why the actual instructions matter more than a general description of the appeal’s outcome.

Match the next submission to the error the court identified

An error about the legal test is different from a finding that a document was missing or that a witness was not believed. In Silva-Cruz, the problem was the agency’s insistence on an intent to overcome a protected trait. The court did not grant asylum or decide every other eligibility question. The next agency decision therefore required attention to the corrected legal test, rather than an assumption that the court had approved the whole application.

Compare the immigration judge’s decision, the Board’s decision and the appellate ruling. Mark the issue the court returned and the findings it left undisturbed. If a point remains unresolved, identify it expressly instead of treating the remand as an answer to it. Our case analysis explains the particular nexus error and separate CAT result.

A separate CAT denial needs separate attention

CAT addresses the risk of torture under its own requirements. An asylum nexus error does not itself show that the CAT ruling was wrong. In Silva-Cruz, page 3, the court held that the record did not compel a finding of the required future torture risk, noting that the family had remained in Tepic for over a year without further harm or threats.

If your court upheld the CAT denial, ask counsel what that ruling means for the next proceedings. Do not assume the agency has been instructed to retry CAT simply because asylum was remanded. Any proposed further request needs its own procedural basis; the split disposition alone does not provide one.

Check the stay and the agency’s next notice too

The same memorandum granted a motion to stay removal. That was an order in that case, not a rule that every remand supplies permanent protection from removal or lawful immigration status. Review the actual stay order and later notices rather than borrowing another applicant’s outcome.

For a consultation about a remand, bring all three decisions, any stay order and the latest agency notice. Our immigration defense attorneys can help identify what remains open and what the next decision must address. An inquiry does not extend a filing deadline or establish representation.