A Higher Bar For CAT Protection
Several 2025 decisions have made it harder to qualify for CAT, which protects individuals who face a “more likely than not” chance of being tortured if returned to their country. If you are concerned about being deported, Ricky Malik is a Arlington, VA deportation defense lawyer who may be able to help with many different immigration and deportation issues.
Matter of A-A-F-V- (29 I&N Dec. 118)
The applicant, a bisexual Salvadoran with gang tattoos, feared detention in El Salvador where LGBTQ+ individuals and gang‑affiliated detainees are abused. The BIA denied relief, claiming he hadn’t shown an “individualized risk of torture.”
Why I Disagree: The Board ignored credible evidence of widespread abuse of both LGBTQ+ and tattooed individuals in detention. Demanding proof that the government specifically intended to harm him defies the reality of how systemic torture works.
Matter of E-Z- (29 I&N Dec. 123)
Here, the BIA overturned an Immigration Judge’s finding that a Russian asylum seeker supporting Ukraine would likely be tortured if returned. The Board dismissed this as “speculative.”
Why I Disagree: Given Russia’s well‑documented repression of political dissidents and those perceived as traitors, dismissing the fear as speculative undermines documented human rights reporting.
Matter of M-S-I- (29 I&N Dec. 61)
This decision clarified that showing the government “can’t or won’t protect” (sufficient for asylum) is not enough for CAT — you must show officials would knowingly acquiesce to your torture.
Why I Disagree: This raises the bar unrealistically high in countries where the government turns a blind eye or tolerates abuses without express orders, which is often the case in real‑world torture scenarios.
Tighter Nexus Requirements For Asylum And Withholding
Applicants for asylum and withholding must show persecution “on account of” a protected ground. The BIA has now demanded more explicit evidence of motive.
Matter of O-A-R-G- (29 I&N Dec. 30)
The Board held that harm against “former” gang members must clearly stem from the persecutor’s animus toward their former status — not retribution for past acts or generalized violence.
Why I Disagree: In reality, retribution is often rooted in the person’s former status. Drawing this fine distinction ignores how persecutors actually target former members as “traitors” or “defectors.”
Matter of C-I-R-H- & H-S-V-R- (29 I&N Dec. 114)
The BIA ruled that general violence and statistical risks are not enough — applicants must show clear evidence linking harm to a protected ground.
Why I Disagree: Persecutors rarely declare their motives outright. The Board’s dismissal of circumstantial and contextual evidence ignores the fact that people in marginalized groups often suffer harm precisely because of who they are.
The Bigger Picture: Chilling Humanitarian Protection
Taken together, these decisions raise the evidentiary standard to levels that are unrealistic and unfair, particularly for people fleeing chaotic and violent situations where documentation is impossible.
By demanding near‑certain proof of individualized targeting and intent to torture — even in environments where systemic abuse is rampant — the BIA is closing the door to many who desperately need protection.
Why Does This Matter?
Asylum, withholding, and CAT exist because the U.S. and the international community recognized that vulnerable people need safe haven. These recent decisions, however, ignore the messy realities of persecution and replace common‑sense compassion with rigid technicalities.
Rather than protecting the vulnerable, the BIA’s narrow interpretations embolden persecutors who know their victims cannot meet impossible legal standards.
Conclusion
The 2025 BIA decisions reflect a troubling erosion of humanitarian values in U.S. immigration law. By dismissing credible fears, discounting systemic violence, and demanding unattainable proof, the Board undermines the very protections it is meant to enforce.
For advocates, this means fighting harder — gathering as much specific evidence as possible and challenging these interpretations in federal court when needed. For applicants, it means staying informed, working with experienced counsel, and not losing hope.
Justice demands that these protections remain meaningful. It’s up to all of us to push back and keep the door to safety open.
If you are concerned about changes that have been made to immigration laws or have any other immigration concerns, I am here to help. Contact The Law Offices of Ricky Malik, P.C today.
