Cite as
29 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4143
Matter of J-C-A-G-, Applicant
Decided by Board September 19, 2025 1
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The applicant, who cooperated with United States law enforcement against the cartel,
did not demonstrate a clear probability of torture where his fear is based on unsubstantiated
statements from a coconspirator and generalized evidence of cartel violence.
FOR THE APPLICANT: Nora Searle, Esquire, Bronx, New York
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: M. Neal Ward, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; MULLANE
and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges.
GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals the Immigration
Judge’s February 27, 2025, decision granting the applicant deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 2 The applicant, a
native and citizen of Mexico, opposes the appeal. The appeal will be
sustained.
The applicant was convicted for his role in a cocaine distribution
conspiracy and sentenced to 30 months in Federal prison. He cooperated
with Federal law enforcement against his coconspirators, and the
Immigration Judge found that if the applicant returned to Mexico, the CJNG
drug cartel allegedly behind the conspiracy would more likely than not
torture him with the acquiescence of the government to punish him for
1
Pursuant to Order No. 6521-2025, dated December 8, 2025, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of J-C-A-G- (BIA Sept. 19, 2025), as precedent
in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2025).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
2
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into
force for United States Nov. 20, 1994).
8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17 (2025);
8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a) (2020).
page
331
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4143
“snitching” and to send a message that cooperation with law enforcement
will have consequences. The Immigration Judge also found that the Sinaloa
cartel or the Mexican police would more likely than not torture the applicant
because the cartels and Mexican police are known to target recent deportees
for kidnapping, extortion, and interrogation by torture.
First, the Immigration Judge’s determination that the applicant will more
likely than not be tortured by Mexican police or the Sinaloa cartel contains
clear factual and legal error. The Immigration Judge based this conclusion
on the applicant’s assertion that he gave information about a Sinaloa cartel
member to United States authorities, and general evidence of the cartel
infiltration of Mexican authorities and the participation of some Mexican
police officers in kidnapping recent deportees. But there is not sufficient
evidence in the record to show that anyone affiliated with the Sinaloa cartel
is aware of the applicant or his cooperation or that he ever received any
threats or harm from the cartel. The conclusion that the cartel will expend
resources to hunt down and torture the applicant upon his return is
speculative. See Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912, 917–18, 918 n.4
(A.G. 2006) (holding that an applicant’s eligibility for CAT protection
cannot be established by stringing together a series of suppositions to show
that it is more likely than not that torture will result if the evidence does not
establish that each step in the hypothetical chain of events is more likely than
not to happen).
As to the risk of harm from Mexican police, we agree with DHS that the
Immigration Judge conflated harms that may not amount to torture with those
that do. In support of her conclusion, the Immigration Judge cited evidence
that Mexican police “often target male deportees, ‘harassing, extorting,
beating, and jailing them without cause.’” While she noted that “the purpose
of the[] kidnapping is usually about information obtained through
interrogation and torture,” this evidence is simply too generalized to establish
a particularized, specific risk that the police will more likely than not torture
the applicant, rather than leave him unharmed or subject him to lesser harms
such as harassment or extortion, based on his status as a recent deportee who
cannot speak Spanish. See, e.g., Herrera-Martinez v. Garland, 22 F.4th 173,
187 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that generalized reports of human rights
violations are insufficient to show that a particular person would likely be
tortured); Nolasco v. Garland,
7 F.4th 180, 191 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining
that “the mere existence of a pattern of human rights violations in a particular
country does not constitute a sufficient ground” to sustain a CAT claim
(citation omitted)). Further, the fact that criminals or some Mexican police
officers may commit crimes against recent deportees, even routinely, is
Page
332
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4143
insufficient to establish that the applicant will more likely than not personally
be tortured. See
id.
Second, we cannot affirm the Immigration Judge’s determination that the
CJNG cartel will more likely than not torture the applicant based on his
cooperation with United States authorities. The applicant testified that a
coconspirator and fellow detainee, “Ricardo,” who was affiliated with the
CJNG, told other detainees that the applicant was a “snitch.” Based on
country conditions evidence and expert testimony concerning CJNG’s
operations and influence, the Immigration Judge found that CJNG already
knows about the applicant’s cooperation with authorities, plans to target him
upon return, and will coordinate with other cartels to find and torture him no
matter where he goes in Mexico.
We find this conclusion insufficiently supported by record evidence. The
applicant’s fear rests in substantial part on his interactions with Ricardo. The
applicant’s knowledge of Ricardo’s CJNG connections is based on
representations that Ricardo made. Other than the statements Ricardo gave
to the applicant’s fellow detainees, nobody has indicated any desire to harm
or punish the applicant. The links in the evidentiary chain leading to the
applicant’s torture are too tenuous. We acknowledge the Immigration
Judge’s consideration of the country conditions and expert testimony, which
paint a picture of near-omnipotent cartels who can easily find and torture
anyone in Mexico whenever they wish. But the requirements for CAT
deferral are “exacting,” and even appreciable risks of torture will not qualify
unless they are more likely than not. Matter of A-A-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 38, 46
(BIA 2025). We conclude that the applicant’s cooperation with United States
law enforcement in a drug conspiracy case coupled with statements from an
alleged cartel associate that he is a snitch, even considering the expert and
country conditions evidence cited by the Immigration Judge, are insufficient
to establish a clear probability that he will be specifically hunted down and
tortured by that cartel wherever he relocates in Mexico.
We note that the applicant has never personally received any threats or
harm related to his cooperation in detention or in the several years after he
was released from prison. The Immigration Judge discounted this fact based
on expert testimony that the cartels try to avoid unnecessary violence in the
United States so as to not disrupt lucrative drug operations. But while this
evidence may not be dispositive in itself, it bears upon the seriousness and
credibility of the alleged threat. As DHS argues, in his initial Credible Fear
Interview, the applicant expressed a fear of the cartels killing or recruiting
him if he returned to Mexico, and disclaimed knowledge of the specific cartel
that Ricardo worked for.
Page
333
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2025) Interim Decision #4143
On our de novo review, we disagree with the Immigration Judge’s
conclusion that the applicant has satisfied his burden of proving that it is
more likely than not that he will suffer harm amounting to “torture” by, at
the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.
See Matter of A-A-F-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 118, 122 (BIA 2025) (recognizing that
the Board reviews de novo the ultimate question of whether the alien’s
predicted harm satisfies the legal definition of torture). The applicant may
face some risk of torture resulting from his participation in a potentially
cartel-related drug trafficking conspiracy. But the record before us,
ultimately predicated on jailhouse hearsay and absent of any actual threats
despite ample opportunity for their issuance, is insufficient to establish a
clear probability of torture even considering the general evidence that the
cartels operate in many areas of Mexico with impunity, have corrupted many
government officials, and inflict significant and serious violence on Mexican
citizens. See generally
id. at 119–21 (reversing the Immigration Judge’s
determination that the alien established a clear probability of torture).
Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s order dated
February 27, 2025, granting deferral of removal under the CAT is vacated.
NOTICE: If an applicant is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any
action designed to prevent or hamper the applicant’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the applicant shall be subject to a civil monetary penalty
of up to $998 for each day the applicant is in violation. See section 274D of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024);
8 C.F.R.
§ 280.53(b)(14) (2025).
Page
334
