Umana-Escobar v. Garland

The BIA reviews the IJ’s underlying factual findings, such as what a persecutor’s motive may be, for clear error. See, e.g., Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011). For CAT relief, an applicant must prove that the torture would be “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

Umana-Escobar was denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) by the immigration judge (IJ). He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which found that Umana-Escobar failed to establish the required nexus between a protected ground and any feared harm, and failed to provide enough evidence for CAT. Umana-Escobar appealed the BIA’s decision and moved to terminate the proceeding because the Notice to Appear (NTA) lacked crucial information amounting to a claims-processing violation. The BIA reviews the IJ’s underlying factual findings, such as what a persecutor’s motive may be, for clear error. See, e.g., Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011). For CAT relief, an applicant must prove that the torture would be “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).  The Court rejected Umana-Escobar’s claims-processing argument due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court found the BIA used the wrong standard of review when reviewing the asylum and withholding of removal claims because it applied the clear error standard instead of de novo review of the IJ’s nexus determination. The Court reasoned that the CAT relief was properly denied because Umana-Escobar did not prove government involvement in the feared harm. PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and REMANDED.