Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Nasrallah v. Barr: Courts May Review Facts Underlying a CAT Order

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 21, 2026

Nasrallah distinguishes the final order authorizing removal from a CAT order that determines only whether the government may remove a person to a particular country.

The Board vacated CAT protection

After a conviction, Nidal Nasrallah was ordered removed but initially received CAT protection from removal to Lebanon. The Board reversed the CAT ruling, and the Eleventh Circuit believed the criminal-alien jurisdiction bar prevented review of factual challenges.

A CAT order is not the removal order

The final order decides removability; CAT protection does not erase that order and can permit removal to another country. Because Congress limited factual review of specified removal orders, the restriction did not automatically extend to a distinct CAT determination.

Substantial-evidence review applies

The court of appeals may examine factual challenges to the CAT order while treating agency findings as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the contrary result.

Disposition

The Court reversed and remanded for review under the correct framework. It did not decide whether Nasrallah ultimately qualified for CAT protection.

Key takeaways

• Separate challenges to removability from challenges to country-specific CAT protection.
• Identify the correct jurisdictional provision for each issue.
• Develop the record with the demanding substantial-evidence standard in mind.
• A reviewable CAT claim does not invalidate the removal order itself.