Martine v. Lynch, No. 15-3117 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native of Haiti, seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that he was ineligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this case, petitioner argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ because the IJ applied the wrong legal standard when it failed to grant petitioner a presumption that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on past persecution. The court concluded that a showing of past persecution does not establish a presumption under the law regarding the likelihood of future torture upon removal. Therefore, neither the BIA nor the IJ applied the wrong legal standard in petitioner's case. To the extent that petitioner's arguments challenge the agency's factual determinations, the court lacks jurisdiction to review such claims under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D). Finally, when considering petitioner's CAT claim, the immigration courts were required to determine the likelihood that petitioner would suffer future torture if removed to Haiti, and they did not err in citing or relying on relevant case law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. A showing of past persecution does not establish a presumption under the law regarding the likelihood of future torture upon removal, and both the IJ and the BIA applied the correct legal standard in assessing claimant's CAT claim; agency's factual determinations cannot be reviewed as they are beyond the court's jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(a)(2)(D).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.