Can a CAT Appeal Succeed Without Challenging the Finding That Torture Is Unlikely?

Showing that officials would acquiesce in torture does not necessarily overturn a CAT denial if an unchallenged finding still says the applicant is not likely to be tortured. Start with every independent reason the agency gave, not just the reason that seems easiest to dispute. The example below is an unpublished Fourth Circuit decision, not controlling Ninth Circuit law for California cases.

Separate the predicted harm from government involvement

Convention Against Torture protection requires a qualifying likelihood of torture and the required public-official involvement, consent or acquiescence. These are related but distinct questions. Evidence that police are corrupt may bear on official involvement; it does not necessarily establish that a particular applicant faces a more-likely-than-not risk of torture. Conversely, a detailed personal threat does not itself establish the required government connection.

The distinction became decisive in Cerritos Rivas v. Bondi, opinion at 10–11. The court brief argued official acquiescence, but did not challenge the agency’s separate determination that future torture was insufficiently likely. Even success on the acquiescence argument would have left that independent reason for denial in place.

Identify whose decision and reasoning are being reviewed

Read the BIA decision alongside the immigration judge’s decision, rather than assuming every sentence from the earlier ruling remains an operative ground. Did the Board adopt that reasoning, issue its own explanation, or decline to reach an issue? In Cerritos Rivas, the BIA gave its own reasoning without adopting the judge’s opinion, and the Fourth Circuit focused on the Board’s decision.

For a consultation, mark each adverse finding and the paragraph in which the BIA used it. A short statement such as “CAT denied” may conceal two independently sufficient findings. The first practical objective is to identify the actual obstacle, not draft a longer general explanation of dangerous country conditions.

Connect each challenged finding to evidence already in the record

For likelihood, identify the feared acts, actors, access to the applicant, prior incidents, continuing threats and the evidence bearing on present risk. Explain why favorable country information relates to this applicant rather than danger in the abstract. For official involvement, identify the separate evidence about officials’ conduct or response. Keep the two explanations visible even where one exhibit supports both.

For example, a hypothetical report documenting police cooperation with a particular criminal organization may support an acquiescence argument. To challenge a finding that the organization no longer seeks the applicant, counsel would still need to identify evidence connecting that organization’s present capability and interest to the person. Repeating the corruption evidence does not answer that different finding.

Use the right standard at the right stage

A federal court’s substantial-evidence review is not a new trial. The Cerritos Rivas court required evidence compelling a different factual result, not merely permitting one. A useful argument identifies the agency’s inference, the record evidence said to undermine it, and why the applicable review standard is met. A list of exhibits without that connection asks the reviewing court to construct the argument.

At the earlier agency stage, make sure the evidence and argument about each necessary CAT component are actually presented. If the judge or BIA makes a separate adverse finding, address it expressly through the procedure available at that stage. This is not a complete exhaustion or deadline guide: The actual decision, forum and controlling circuit law require case-specific review.

Do not collapse CAT into the asylum dispute

The same opinion separately addressed whether property-related harm had the required protected-ground nexus for asylum and withholding. CAT did not fail merely because that nexus theory failed. Its independent likelihood problem required its own challenge. Our Cerritos Rivas analysis explains the distinct grounds and the issues the court did not reach.

A focused review packet contains the IJ and BIA decisions, the briefs already filed, the relevant hearing testimony and identified exhibits. It lets counsel distinguish an omitted argument, an evidentiary weakness and a disputed legal standard. None is automatically cured by adding more country reports, and the Fourth Circuit example should not be substituted for current Ninth Circuit law. Our immigration practice resources provide the broader context.