Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

In re M-B-A-, Respondent 

Decided September 24, 2002 

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

A Nigerian convicted of a drug offense in the United States failed to establish eligibility for 

deferral of removal under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture because the evidence 

she presented regarding the enforcement of Decree No. 33 of the Nigerian National Drug Law 

Enforcement Agency against individuals similarly situated to her was insufficient to 

demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by a public official, or at the 

instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of such an official, if she is deported to Nigeria. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Star Havasreti, Esquire, St. Petersburg, Florida 

FOR THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE: Sylvia H. Alonso, 

Appellate Counsel 

BEFORE: Board En Banc: SCIALABBA, Chairman; DUNNE, Vice Chairman; HOLMES, 

HURWITZ, VILLAGELIU, FILPPU, COLE, GRANT, MOSCATO, MILLER, 

OHLSON, HESS, and PAULEY, Board Members. Concurring and Dissenting 

Opinion: ROSENBERG, Board Member. Dissenting Opinion: SCHMIDT, 

Board Member, joined by GUENDELSBERGER, BRENNAN, ESPENOZA, and 

OSUNA, Board Members. 

HOLMES, Board Member: 

This case is before us pursuant to a motion filed by the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service seeking en banc reconsideration of our June 8, 2001, 

decision sustaining the respondent’s appeal. The Service’s motion will be 

granted. Upon reconsideration, our June 8, 2001, decision will be vacated 

and the respondent’s appeal will be dismissed. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The respondent is a 40-year-old native and citizen of Nigeria who entered 

the United States on January 16, 1981, as a nonimmigrant visitor. She 

subsequently adjusted her status to that of a lawful permanent resident on 

December 1, 1989. The respondent was convicted on January 20, 1995, in 

the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, of importation of 

a controlled substance and possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 841(a)(1) (1994). 

She was initially sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment, but her sentence 

474
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

was later reduced to 78 months as a result of her assistance to Government 

controlled substances investigations. 

On May 21, 1999, the Service issued a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) 

charging that the respondent is removable under sections 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 

(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) 

and (B)(i) (Supp. V 1999), as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and 

a controlled substance violation. In proceedings before the Immigration 

Judge, the respondent, through counsel, admitted the allegations of the Notice 

to Appear and conceded that she is removable as charged. The Immigration 

Judge concluded that the respondent’s conviction and sentence precluded her 

from establishing eligibility for any relief other than deferral of removal under 

Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 

Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature 

Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. 

Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United 

States Apr. 18, 1988) (“Convention Against Torture” or “Convention”). The 

respondent does not dispute the Immigration Judge’s finding in this regard. 

In her application for protection under the Convention Against Torture, the 

respondent stated that if she is returned to Nigeria she would be imprisoned 

and tortured as a result of her drug conviction in this country. In support of 

this claim, the respondent submitted a detailed affidavit, evidence of country 

conditions in Nigeria, and a copy of a 1990 Nigerian federal military 

government decree which, in part, criminalized the conduct of Nigerians who 

are convicted of narcotic drug offenses in a foreign country and bring the 

name of Nigeria into disrepute, or who are detected carrying a narcotic drug 

into a foreign country after a journey originating from Nigeria. See National 

Drug Law Enforcement Agency (Amendment) Decree 1990, Decree No. 33 

(Oct. 10, 1990) (“Decree No. 33”). 

During proceedings before the Immigration Judge on December 14, 1999, 

the respondent testified that she had traveled to Nigeria in 1993 to meet her 

then-fiancé’s family and had been unwillingly involved in drug trafficking by 

his relatives and associates when she traveled back to the United States. She 

testified that because of this conviction she would be immediately turned 

over to drug enforcement authorities and imprisoned if she is returned to 

Nigeria, that she would be in jail for years before she would be able to see 

a judge, that she was subject to a mandatory 5-year term of imprisonment, and 

that she would be subjected to torture while jailed. 

When asked how she knew that this would occur, the respondent referred 

to Decree No. 33 and also testified that some years before she had 

communicated with an unnamed Nigerian friend who had been convicted of 

a drug offense in this country and then returned to Nigeria. The respondent 

indicated that she spoke by telephone to her friend and her friend’s parents in 

1995. She was told that her friend had been detained upon her return to 

475
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

Nigeria in 1995, that her family had had to bring food and medication to the 

jail and pay money for her protection, that she slept on the floor, and that 

“you probably get raped and beat down” by the guards because they have 

authority to do “whatever they can do.” Her friend remained in jail for 

2 months until her family paid a bribe to get her released. The respondent did 

not know whether her friend had gone before a judge before being 

incarcerated or whether she had been raped in prison. The respondent 

testified that she had had a letter from her friend, but that the Service had 

misplaced “all of her paperwork” while she was in transit and that she no 

longer knew the whereabouts of her friend. 

The respondent further testified that there was no one to help her in Nigeria 

if she were jailed. Her father had died and her mother was “presently” living 

in England with her mother’s sister. However, the respondent’s mother was 

not a citizen or resident of the United Kingdom and the respondent did not 

know how long she would be staying in England. The respondent testified 

that all of her brothers and sisters were in the United States and that her only 

relations in Nigeria were an uncle and his children, but that they would not 

assist her and she would not even want her uncle to know that she was in 

Nigeria because he had sexually abused her as a child. The respondent did 

not present any testimony from her siblings in this country or otherwise testify 

regarding her relationship with them or their individual circumstances. 

The respondent testified, and provided supporting medical evidence, that 

she suffers from depression, a chronic ulcer, and asthma. She stated that she 

had no one to rely on to supply her with medicine if she were jailed in 

Nigeria. In addition, the respondent testified that she would probably be 

beaten and raped by prison guards. She stated that most women are 

subjected to such treatment in prison and that the government does not have 

the ability to protect them. She also claimed that she would be particularly 

vulnerable because her ex-fiancé would pay prison guards to harm her 

because of her cooperation with drug enforcement authorities in this country. 

The respondent indicated that her ex-fiancé was now in Nigeria, but she did 

not testify to any communications from or about him, or otherwise identify a 

specific basis for her claim that he had the ability and intent to cause her harm 

if she were detained in Nigeria. 

Following this hearing, the Immigration Judge requested that the parties file 

briefs to address the issues presented, including whether the respondent 

would be imprisoned without trial upon her return to Nigeria. The Service 

filed a memorandum in which it noted that it was unclear whether Decree No. 

33 was still in effect or had been repealed by the 1999 Constitution of the 

Federal Republic of Nigeria. In a decision dated January 5, 2000, the 

Immigration Judge found the respondent removable and denied her application 

for deferral of removal, concluding that, even if she were imprisoned under 

476
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

Decree No. 33, the respondent had failed to establish that it was more likely 

than not that she would be tortured in prison. 

Following an appeal by the respondent, the case was remanded by the 

Board to the Immigration Judge on September 6, 2000, for procedural reasons 

arising from the fact that the respondent had not been provided an opportunity 

to rebut the evidence regarding the new Nigerian constitution that was first 

raised in the Service’s post-hearing memorandum. In that decision, we also 

specifically directed the Immigration Judge to address the respondent’s claim 

that it is more likely than not that she would be imprisoned if returned to 

Nigeria. The parties responded by submitting memoranda of law and 

supporting documents. Neither party sought to present any further testimonial 

evidence. In a November 29, 2000, decision, the Immigration Judge again 

denied the respondent’s application for relief. He addressed the additional 

evidence submitted by the parties and concluded that the respondent still had 

not met her burden of proving that she would be imprisoned and tortured in 

Nigeria. The respondent filed an appeal from this decision, which was 

sustained in a Board panel decision issued on June 8, 2001. The Service 

timely submitted the present motion seeking en banc reconsideration of that 

decision. We have decided to reconsider the decision en banc. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 3.1(a)(4)(i) (2002). 

II. ISSUE ON APPEAL 

The issue on appeal is whether the respondent has met her burden of 

establishing that she is eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention 

Against Torture by proving that it is more likely than not that she will be 

imprisoned and tortured in Nigeria by a public official, or at the instigation 

or with the acquiescence of such an official, if she is returned to that country. 

III. ANALYSIS 

In order to establish eligibility for deferral of removal, the respondent must 

show that it is more likely than not that she will be subject to torture by a 

public official, or at the instigation or with the acquiescence of such an 

official. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(4), 208.18(a) (2002); see also Matter of 

G-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 366 (BIA 2002); Matter of Y-L-, A-G- & R-S-R-, 23 I&N 

Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002); Matter of S-V-, 22 I&N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000). The 

respondent has claimed that if she is returned to Nigeria she will be arrested 

and imprisoned without trial for 5 years pursuant to Decree No. 33,1

 and that 

1 This decree provides that a Nigerian citizen who is convicted of a narcotic drug offense in 

a foreign country, or who is detected carrying a narcotic drug into a foreign country after a 

journey originating from Nigeria, “shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years 

(continued...) 

477 
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

while in prison she will be tortured by guards. Thus, the respondent must 

demonstrate, inter alia, that enforcement of Decree No. 33 will more likely 

than not result in her detention and torture in Nigeria upon her return to that 

country. We find that she has not met her burden of proof in this regard. 

In our decision of September 6, 2000, remanding the case to the 

Immigration Judge, we noted that the Immigration Judge should more 

specifically address the respondent’s claim that it was more likely than not 

that she would be imprisoned if returned to Nigeria. On remand, the 

Immigration Judge advised the parties that he expected that issue to be 

addressed in their submissions. Although the respondent submitted additional 

documentation regarding country conditions in Nigeria and evidence in 

response to the Service’s claim that the new Nigerian constitution may have 

repealed Decree No. 33, nothing further was offered with regard to the 

manner of enforcement of this decree. It is unclear whether the respondent 

chose to rest on the evidence of record or was unsuccessful in uncovering any 

additional information relevant to this matter. Whichever was the case, the 

respondent’s evidence regarding the manner of enforcement of Decree No. 33 

largely remains that which was presented at the 1999 proceedings. We find 

this evidence insufficient to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the 

respondent will be detained or imprisoned if she is returned to Nigeria. 

The actual status of Decree No. 33 is not entirely clear on the record 

before us, but we will assume that it has not been repealed and is 

enforceable. However, even assuming that such is the case, there is little 

evidence of record on which to base any meaningful conclusion regarding the 

extent to which this provision is presently enforced, and how and against 

whom it is enforced. The fact that the decree is written in mandatory terms 

is not in itself determinative because it is common to couch criminal 

provisions in such terms. For example, virtually all of the criminal provisions 

of Title 18, United States Code, omit any specific reference to a right to trial 

and provide that anyone guilty of the offense in question “shall be punished” 

or “shall be imprisoned.” See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) (2000) (“Within the 

special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, [w]hoever 

is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by 

imprisonment for life.”). 

The respondent’s own evidence concerning the present manner of 

enforcement of Decree No. 33 does not go much beyond conjecture, and her 

reference to the circumstances that were related to her by her friend and her 

friend’s parents in 1995 involved one individual some 7 years ago under a 

1 (...continued)

without an option of fine.” See generally McDaniel v. United States INS, 142 F. Supp. 2d

219, 223 (D. Conn. 2001); United States v. Ibekwe, 891 F. Supp. 587 (M.D. Fla. 1995).

478
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

different regime in Nigeria.2 While Nigeria has had chronic problems with 

drug trafficking and has been a country with a poor human rights record and 

endemic corruption in its judicial system, it is also a country in which 

“domestic and international human rights groups generally operate without 

government restriction, investigating and publishing their findings on human 

rights cases.” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Dep’t 

of State, Nigeria Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001 (Mar. 

2002), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8397.htm. 

The respondent has been represented in these proceedings since 1999, and the 

importance of providing evidence on the issue of the likelihood of her 

detention has been emphasized. On the record before us, we are not satisfied 

that she has met her burden of providing adequate evidence to establish that 

it is more likely than not that her return to Nigeria would result in her 

detention or imprisonment. 

In this regard, we do not find it sufficient for the respondent simply to cite 

the existence of Decree No. 33 and her unnamed friend’s experiences in 

1995. The respondent must provide some current evidence, or at least more 

meaningful historical evidence, regarding the manner of enforcement of the 

provisions of Decree No. 33 on individuals similarly situated to herself. Cf., 

e.g., Matter of G-A-, supra, at 369-70 (“[W]e find that the respondent would 

be subject to close scrutiny upon his return [to Iran] after spending 25 years 

in the United States, and he would likely be detained and interrogated as a 

result.”); Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 299 (BIA 2002) (“It is 

undisputed that the respondent will be subject to detention of an indeterminate 

length upon his return to Haiti.”). 

The respondent’s eligibility for deferral of removal rests upon a finding that 

it is more likely than not that she will be identified as a convicted drug 

trafficker upon her return to Nigeria; that, as a result, she will be detained on 

arrival; that, when detained, she will be held in detention without access to 

bail or judicial oversight; that she will be detained for a significant period of 

time; and that, as a result of this detention, she will suffer mistreatment that 

rises to the level of torture at the hands of prison guards or authorities. Given 

the evidence of harsh and life-threatening prison conditions in Nigeria and the 

serious drug trafficking problems that Nigerian authorities are attempting to 

address, the respondent’s fear of return to her home country is 

understandable. On the record before us, however, we find that the 

respondent’s case is based on a chain of assumptions and a fear of what might 

happen, rather than evidence that meets her burden of demonstrating that it is 

more likely than not that she will be subjected to torture by, or with the 

2 On May 29, 1999, President Obasanjo was inaugurated to a 4-year term, replacing the 

previous military regime in Nigeria. 

479 
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity 

if she is returned to her home country. 

Consequently, we agree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent has 

not met her burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that she 

would be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, government 

officials acting under color of law if she is removed to Nigeria.3 Accordingly, 

the Service’s motion to reconsider will be granted and the respondent’s 

appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The motion to reconsider en banc by the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service is granted, and our June 8, 2001, decision is vacated. 

FURTHER ORDER: The respondent’s appeal is dismissed. 

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION: Lory Diana Rosenberg, 

Board Member 

I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. 

I agree that the respondent bears the burden of proof as articulated in 

Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2002), and Matter of G-A-, 23 I&N 

Dec. 366 (BIA 2002), and that our determination of the motion to reconsider 

filed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service is governed by those 

decisions. See also Matter of Y-L-, A-G- & R-S-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (A.G. 

2002). Therefore, I concur to that extent with the majority opinion. 

However, measured by the proper standard, the evidence reflects that it is 

more likely than not that the respondent will be detained and imprisoned 

under Decree No. 33 or other existing enforcement practices in Nigeria 

because she has been convicted of drug trafficking, and that the treatment she 

3 Requiring the respondent to meet her burden of proof by presenting evidence from which 

one would conclude that it is more likely than not that she would be subject to torture if 

returned to her home country does not convert this burden into a requirement that she establish 

the likelihood of torture beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a case in which, in an exercise of 

caution, the record was specifically remanded, in part, to address the respondent’s claim that 

it is more likely than not that she would be imprisoned if returned to Nigeria. Yet none of the 

principal evidence relied upon in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Board Member 

Rosenberg is evidence of record. Moreover, the cited news articles would not have changed 

the result in this case even if they were matters of record. Two of the three articles make no 

specific reference to Decree No. 33 and pertain to the enforcement of Nigerian drug laws 

against those charged with possession of drugs or an attempt to smuggle drugs. For example, 

one of these articles discusses a woman detained at the airport in Lagos who was ultimately 

found to be in possession of heroin with a street value of $100,000. The third article notes 

that the controversy surrounding the constitutionality of Decree No. 33 has been laid to rest, 

but it does not reference instances of its actual enforcement against individuals in the 

respondent’s circumstance. Rather, the article discusses suspected drug peddlers caught in 

Nigeria in possession of drugs, including one who was arrested in a second incident of drug 

possession after having been “granted bail” by a Nigerian court. As noted above, we have 

assumed that Decree No. 33 is enforceable, and we have no question that the Nigerian 

Government is actively attempting to address that country’s serious drug trafficking problems. 

480
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

will be subjected to once in prison will amount to torture. See National Drug 

Law Enforcement Agency (Amendment) Decree 1990, Decree No. 33 

(Oct. 10, 1990) (“Decree No. 33”). A fair review of our June 8, 2001, 

decision, read in light of our recent precedent, requires denial of the Service’s 

motion to reconsider. Accordingly, I dissent. 

I. ADJUDICATION OF A MOTION TO RECONSIDER 

The majority does not explain why it is appropriate to grant 

reconsideration, but simply proceeds to adjudicate the motion and redecide 

the appeal in favor of the Service, notwithstanding the fact that a panel of this 

Board had fully considered the parties’ positions on appeal and reached a 

contrary conclusion. Nevertheless, we are not charged with granting motions 

to reconsider willy nilly, but must judge them according to an articulated 

standard, no matter which party files the motion. 

A motion to reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(b) (2002) is not broadly 

available, but is subject to certain restrictions. It is a request that we 

reexamine our original decision in light of an additional legal argument, an 

aspect of the case which was overlooked, or an intervening change in the law. 

See Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399, 402 (BIA 1991), aff’d, 979 F.2d 212 

(11th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision); see also Board of Immigration 

Appeals Practice Manual, § 5.7(a), at 70 (“A motion to reconsider either 

identifies an error in law or fact in a prior Board decision or identifies a 

change in law that affects a prior Board decision and asks the Board to 

re-examine its ruling.”). Although the majority does not identify any one or 

more of these bases on which it would be appropriate to grant the Service’s 

motion to reconsider, I am inclined to find that reconsideration is appropriate 

in light of the intervening decision of the Attorney General in Matter of Y-L-, 

A-G- & R-S-R-, supra, as well as our subsequent decisions in Matter of J-E-, 

supra, and Matter of G-A-, supra. 

II. LIKELIHOOD OF TORTURE BASED ON 

EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD 

The majority’s analysis turns on the evidence in the record, finding it to be 

insufficient to satisfy the respondent’s burden of proof under the “more likely 

than not” standard provided in 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002). According to 

the majority’s reasoning, the respondent’s claim that it is more likely than not 

that she will be identified, imprisoned, and subjected to torture upon her 

return to Nigeria is little more than a product of her speculation. I disagree. 

481
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

A. Imprisonment Under Decree No. 33 

In moving for en banc reconsideration of our opinion, the Service contends 

that the Board erred in finding that the respondent met her burden of proving 

that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if returned to Nigeria. 

The Service appears to challenge the existence of Decree No. 33, which 

provides that any Nigerian found guilty of importation of narcotic or 

psychotropic drugs or substances abroad, who thereby brings the name of 

Nigeria into disrepute, is guilty of an offense and liable to be imprisoned for 

5 years. See Decree No. 33, § 12A(2), (3). The Service contends that the 

respondent submitted a barely legible copy of section 12A of the Decree and 

suggests that it is “unclear” whether the law has been repealed. 

Although the majority opinion acknowledges the existence of Decree No. 

33, the majority rejects the likelihood that it will be enforced and the 

respondent will be imprisoned. The majority also acknowledges that the 

respondent testified she would be handed over to drug enforcement officials 

upon her forcible return to Nigeria, and that she would be detained and 

subject to 5 years’ imprisonment under Decree No. 33, but finds these 

expressed concerns to be no more than conjecture. In addition, despite 

conceding that Decree No. 33 continues in force, the majority asserts that the 

record lacks sufficient evidence to indicate how it is enforced or that it would 

be enforced against the respondent. Matter of M-B-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 474, 478 

(BIA 2002). According to the majority, the evidence provided by the 

respondent offers little more than a “chain of assumptions,” which does not 

meet the respondent’s burden of proof. Id. at 479. 

However, notwithstanding the majority’s protestations, we may take 

administrative notice of the fact that international journalists continue to 

report the aggressive enforcement of Decree No. 33. See Matter of S-M-J-, 

21 I&N Dec. 722, 728 n.2 (BIA 1997); Matter of R-R-, 20 I&N Dec. 547, 

551 n.3 (BIA 1992), and cases cited therein (stating that it is well established 

that administrative agencies may take administrative notice of commonly 

known facts). First, a recent news report indicates that, as a result of a 

Nigerian Federal High Court ruling that the “Decree does not portend double 

jeopardy,” the constitutionality of Decree No. 33 has been affirmed. 

Sylvester Ebhodaghe, NDLEA arrests 779 suspected drug peddlers, The 

Guardian web site (Lagos, Nigeria), Aug. 4, 2000, available at 2000 WL 

25038682. 

Second, recent news reports confirm that enforcement is even greater under 

the present Obasanjo regime. For example, on June 17, 2002, the Xinhua 

News Agency reported that “[t]o stem the spread of the menace, the 

incumbent administration undertaken by President Olusegun Obasanjo has 

been keeping up its fights against drug abuse and trafficking among Nigerians 

by all legitimate means.” 110 Drug Traffickers Arrested in Southern 

482
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

Nigeria, Xinhua News Agency, June 17, 2002, available at 2002 WL 

22619255. 

Third, women are not exempt from being targeted and punished as drug 

smugglers. As Newsday, Inc. reported in a May 6, 2002, article, the Nigerian 

drug enforcement agency charged nearly 100 women with smuggling drugs in 

2001, and this year’s arrests even included a 64-year-old grandmother and a 

flight attendant for Nigerian Airways. Samson Mulugeta (Africa 

Correspondent), Nigerian Drug Rings Using Creative Tactics/Enlist 

non-profile carriers to help smuggle heroin, Newsday, Inc., May 6, 2002, at 

A12, available at 2002 WL 2741793. These news articles reflect that the 

decree exists, that it is actively enforced by the Obasanjo government, and 

that it is enforced against women. 

B. Torture in Nigerian Prisons

The dissenting opinion of Board Member Schmidt correctly points out that, 

within the interpretation set forth in Matter of J-E-, supra, certain prison 

conditions amounting to “deliberate vicious acts” may constitute torture, even 

when imprisonment results from the imposition of lawful sanctions. Matter 

of M-B-A-, supra, at 488 (Schmidt, dissenting). The dissent notes that 

Nigerian prison officials, police, and security forces are reported to have 

deliberately denied inmates food and medical treatment. The dissenting 

opinion stresses that such deliberate mistreatment is not merely negligent or 

accidental, but intentional. Id. at 490. 

Moreover, the dissent indicates that the Department of State country report 

for Nigeria estimates that reputable human rights organizations have reported 

that inmates in Nigerian prison custody die daily due to harsh conditions and 

the denial of medical treatment. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor, U.S. Dep’t of State, Nigeria Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices - 2001 (Mar. 2002), available at 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8397.htm (“Country Reports”). 

Although the exact number is difficult to obtain because officials fail to keep 

proper records, such a report certainly raises legitimate questions concerning 

prison conditions and the deliberate mistreatment of certain prisoners. 

Rather than consider how such information in the Country Reports bolsters 

the respondent’s claim that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured 

upon her return to Nigeria, the majority points to the fact that the Country 

Reports indicate that human rights groups generally operate without 

government restriction in Nigeria. Matter of M-B-A-, supra, at 479. 

However, the ability of human rights groups to investigate conditions within 

Nigeria does not mean that Decree No. 33 is not enforced, that conditions in 

Nigerian prisons do not rise to the level of torture, or that more definitive 

483
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

proof of the enforcement of Decree No. 33 should be available to the 

respondent. 

C. Adjudication Under the “More Likely Than Not” Standard

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in which this 

case arises, has recognized that “[i]n making out a claim under CAT, ‘[t]he 

burden of proof is on the applicant . . . to establish that it is more likely than 

not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of 

removal.’” Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001) 

(quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2001)). The “more likely than not” 

standard was addressed in INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984), as “a 

familiar one to immigration authorities and reviewing courts.” 

By its terms, this standard requires evidence of a greater than 50% chance 

that an event will occur. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 

(1987), in which the Supreme Court differentiated the “more likely than not” 

standard from a less stringent standard, ruling that “[o]ne can certainly have 

a well-founded fear of an event happening when there is less than a 50% 

chance of the occurrence taking place.” Thus, the “more likely than not 

standard” requires the applicant to establish the elements of his claim by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 

The preponderance of the evidence standard, which is applied in most civil 

cases, requires a lesser quantum of proof than the “clear and convincing” 

standard and is significantly less stringent than the “beyond a reasonable 

doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings. Matter of Patel, 19 I&N Dec. 

774, 783 (BIA 1988) (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979)). 

The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence 

“simply requires the trier of fact ‘to believe that the existence of a fact is 

more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party 

who has the burden to persuade the [judge] of the fact’s existence.’” In re 

Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371-72 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) (quoting F. 

James, Civil Procedure 250-51 (1965)). “Unlike other standards of proof 

such as reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence, the 

preponderance standard ‘allows both parties to share the risk of error in 

roughly equal fashion’ . . . .” Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 

521 U.S. 121, 137 (1997) (quoting Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 

459 U.S. 375, 390 (1983)); see also Addington v. Texas, supra, at 423. 

In my view, the majority imposes a standard far beyond that required to 

qualify for relief under the statutory and regulatory provisions of the 

Convention Against Torture. See Convention Against Torture and Other 

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened 

for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 

51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 

484
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988) (“Convention Against Torture” or 

“Convention”). The majority dismisses proof of Decree No. 33, the 

respondent’s status as a convicted drug trafficker, her forcible return to 

Nigeria, and evidence of the mistreatment of a similarly situated friend some 

years earlier, and it demands either more “current evidence” or “meaningful 

historical evidence” before the respondent can establish that it is more likely 

than not that she will be identified, imprisoned, and tortured. Matter of 

M-B-A-, supra, at 479. If we actually quantify and apply the standard 

imposed by the majority, we must conclude that the respondent is charged 

with establishing the likelihood of torture beyond a reasonable doubt. 

However repugnant noncitizens convicted of criminal offenses may be, that 

is not the proper standard. 

It is critical to recognize that we do not have the benefit of an accomplished 

act to examine. Furthermore, it has long been accepted that “[t]he victim may 

not know the exact motivation of his or her persecutor, nor . . . are 

persecutors ‘likely to provide their victims with affidavits attesting to their 

acts of persecution.’” Karen Musalo, Irreconcilable Differences? Divorcing 

Refugee Protections from Human Rights Norms, 15 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1179, 

1202 (1994) (quoting Bolanos-Hernandez v. INS, 767 F.2d 1277, 1285 (9th 

Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, in assessing whether it is more likely than not that 

the respondent will face torture in a Nigerian prison once returned to Nigeria, 

it is necessary to draw inferences about what may happen in the future and 

the reasons it may occur. Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486, 494 (BIA 1996) 

(citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992)). 

The Service argues that the June 8, 2001, Board panel erred in finding that 

Nigeria’s prosecution and imprisonment of citizens convicted abroad of drug 

offenses is a violation of the Convention Against Torture because such 

conviction and imprisonment is a lawful sanction. The Service asserts in 

addition that the respondent failed to establish that her treatment in prison 

would exceed that which would be considered “inherent or incidental” to 

incarceration and thus amount to torture.1 

The respondent contends, however, that neither the Immigration Judge nor 

the Board had any difficulty reading or understanding the content of Decree 

No. 33. In addition, she notes that she testified that she knew of someone 

imprisoned pursuant to Decree No. 33 and had provided her attorney with the 

document. She also cites to documentary evidence she provided 

substantiating her contentions that prison guards raped and beat female 

prisoners, and corroborating the deliberate deprivation and withholding of 

food and medication by prison officials, all of which would cause a woman 

with chronic asthma, such as the respondent, severe mental and physical pain 

1 The Service did not file a brief in response to the respondent’s appeal and did not argue any 

of these points on appeal, but raised most of these arguments before the Immigration Judge. 

485
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

and suffering. She emphasizes that such intentional mistreatment, even if 

subject to lawful sanction, defeats the object and purpose of the Convention 

to prohibit torture and thereby violates the Convention Against Torture. 

In Matter of G-A-, supra, at 369, the Board found that a respondent who 

believed he would be “subject to torture or death” in Iran because of a drug 

conviction was entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

Our decision relied on evidence that the respondent, who was of a particular 

ethnicity, was identifiable, and that conditions in Iranian prisons are so severe 

as to amount to torture. Id. at 369-70. 

It was the combination of the traits possessed by the respondent in G-Aand the evidence of widespread use of torture in Iran that led us to conclude 

that the respondent was likely to be subjected to torture if deported to Iran. 

Matter of G-A-, supra, at 369 (crediting the respondent’s testimony that he 

would be identifiable and come to the officials’ attention due to his ethnicity, 

many years in the United States, and apparent loss of legal status evidenced 

by deportation). We specifically accepted the respondent’s contention that, 

once identified, “both his criminal history and his attempt to apply for asylum 

in the United States would be discovered, and that he would likely be ‘subject 

to torture or death’ as a consequence of ‘being deported with a drug 

conviction.’” Id. (emphasis added). 

I do not see how either the respondent’s circumstances or conditions in 

Nigerian prisons are meaningfully different or warrant a different result. By 

virtue of being forcibly removed, the respondent is as identifiable to Nigerian 

authorities as was the respondent in Matter of G-A-. Credible news reports 

reflect that Decree No. 33 is being actively enforced and that women 

smugglers are not immune from its enforcement. It may be that as a general 

rule, prison conditions alone would not meet the definition of torture. Matter 

of J-E-, supra. However, as the dissent points out, we must focus on the 

specific evidence presented in each case rather than relying on blanket 

conclusions. The majority fails to do so. 

The significant factors that should be measured to determine whether it is 

more likely than not the respondent will be tortured if removed to Nigeria are 

(1) that the respondent was convicted of drug trafficking; (2) that under

current Nigerian law, which is actively enforced, a person convicted of a drug 

offense is subject to imprisonment for a period of 5 years; (3) that 

medications are withheld as a means of punishment in Nigerian jails; (4) that 

the respondent has asthma and, if imprisoned, has no family to provide such 

medication or any other form of sustenance; (5) that the respondent has a 

former fiancé who has reason to seek retribution against her; and (6) that rape 

and other assaults of female inmates are prevalent in Nigerian jails. The 

respondent may satisfy her burden of proof that it is more likely than not she 

will be tortured based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from 

these facts in the record. 

486
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

The evidence presented by the respondent is not merely based on her own 

fear and speculation, but on solid, uncontradicted evidence of enforcement 

efforts against smugglers, who are subjected to horrific prison conditions, 

including denial of medication, assault, and rape by prison guards, all 

committed by Nigerian Government officials with impunity. The majority’s 

rejection of the respondent’s evidence as no more than a “chain of 

assumptions,” Matter of M-B-A-, supra, at 479, reveals its imposition of an 

improper standard, leading it to erroneously reject evidence that establishes 

it is more likely than not the respondent will be tortured if returned to Nigeria. 

DISSENTING OPINION: Paul Wickham Schmidt, Board Member, in 

which John Guendelsberger, Noel Ann Brennan, Cecelia M. Espenoza 

and Juan P. Osuna, Board Members, join 

I respectfully dissent. 

I. ISSUE 

I agree with Board Member Rosenberg’s conclusion that the respondent has 

shown that it is more likely than not that she will be imprisoned under Decree 

No. 33 upon return to Nigeria. See National Drug Law Enforcement Agency 

(Amendment) Decree 1990, Decree No. 33 (Oct. 10, 1990) (“Decree No. 

33”). I write separately to address the question the majority avoids: whether 

the respondent more likely than not will be tortured while in prison. I find 

that she will be tortured. 

II. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 

A. Torture Defined 

Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291 (BIA 2002), describes a five-part test for 

determining whether an act of mistreatment rises to the level of “torture” 

under 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1) (2002) and the Convention Against Torture and 

Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and 

opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR 

Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force 

June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988) (“Convention Against 

Torture” or “Convention”). Those five elements are that the act must: 

(1) cause severe physical or mental pain or suffering; (2) be intentionally

inflicted; (3) be inflicted with a proscribed purpose; (4) be inflicted by, at the 

instigation of, or with the acquiescence or consent of a public official who has 

custody or physical control of the victim; and (5) not arise from lawful 

sanctions. 

487
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

Applying this definition, we found in Matter of J-E-, supra, that acts such 

as indefinite detention, inadequate prison nutrition, sporadic light beatings 

with fists and sticks, and other acts fairly characterized as police brutality do 

not rise to the level of torture. 

On the other hand, we found that deliberate vicious acts such as burning 

with cigarettes, choking, hooding, kalot marassa (severe boxing of the ears), 

and electric shock may constitute torture. Matter of J-E-, supra, at 302. 

Additionally, in Matter of G-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 366 (BIA 2002), we found that 

torture includes suspension for long periods of time in confined positions, 

sleep deprivation, severe repeated beatings with cables or other instruments 

on the back and soles of the feet, beatings about the ears resulting in full or 

partial deafness, and punching in the eyes likely to result in full or partial 

blindness. 

B. Prison Conditions As Torture

 In Matter of J-E-, supra, we effectively established a presumption that 

mistreatment in prison is not torture under the Convention Against Torture, 

but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”—reprehensible, worthy 

of condemnation, but not a basis for relief. 

To rebut this presumption, a respondent who is likely to be imprisoned 

upon removal must show that: (1) “torture” exists in the foreign prison 

system; and either (2) it is probable that any prisoner detained in the system 

will be tortured, or (3) he or she possesses individual characteristics making 

it more likely than not he or she will be tortured. 

In Matter of J-E-, supra, the respondent showed that torture exists in the 

Haitian prison system, but he was unable to satisfy tests (2) or (3). His claim 

was therefore unsuccessful. 

By contrast, in Matter of G-A-, supra, the respondent proved that torture 

exists on a widespread basis in the Iranian prison system. But he also 

established that, as a Christian of Armenian descent who spent 25 years in the 

United States and was convicted of a drug violation in this country, he had a 

combination of individual traits that made it likely that the Iranian 

Government would mark him for torture in prison. We therefore granted him 

deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Torture Exists in the Nigerian Prison System 

The most recent Department of State country report on Nigeria describes 

the abuses that are rampant in the Nigerian prison system. Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Dep’t of State, Nigeria Country 

Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001 (Mar. 2002), available at 

488
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8397.htm (“Country Reports”). 

At least one aspect of that abuse, intentional withholding of needed medical 

treatment for improper purposes, which is relevant to this respondent’s 

situation, constitutes “torture” under the test set forth in Matter of J-E-, 

supra. 

The respondent is a chronic asthmatic with no family in Nigeria who could 

provide food or proper medical treatment while she is in jail. The Country 

Reports state that “[p]rison officials, police, and security forces often denied 

inmates food and medical treatment as a form of punishment or to extort 

money from them.” Country Reports, supra, at 6 (emphasis added). 

That report goes on to state the following: 

Harsh conditions and denial of proper medical treatment contributed to the deaths of 

numerous prisoners. A reputable human rights organization estimated in 1999 that at least 

one inmate died per day in the Kiri Kiri prison in Lagos alone. According to the Prisoners 

Rehabilitation and Welfare Action (PRAWA) a nongovernmental organization (NGO), dead 

inmates promptly are buried on the prison compounds, usually without notifying their 

families. A nationwide estimate of the number of inmates who die daily in the country’s 

prisons is difficult to obtain because of poor record keeping by prison officials. PRAWA 

and other NGO’s alleged that prison conditions were worse in rural areas than in urban 

districts. 

Id. (emphasis added). 

Clearly, death caused at least in part by intentional withholding of medical 

treatment for improper purposes is common in the Nigerian prison system. 

The extent of the problem probably is understated because of the difficulty 

in obtaining accurate documentation from the Nigerian system. 

The Country Reports also establish that, with respect to torture of 

prisoners, “[i]n most cases, neither [sic] the state anticrime task forces, the 

police, nor the armed forces were held accountable for excessive, deadly use 

of force or the death of persons in custody.” Country Reports, supra, at 1 

(emphasis added). Thus, there generally is no accountability for acts of 

torture committed by Nigerian Government officials. 

The Country Reports also establish that Nigeria follows traditional Islamic 

law and that discrimination and violence against women is an endemic 

problem. Id. at 17, 18. Women often are imprisoned with men. Id. at 7. 

The Country Reports also make clear that those without family to support 

and feed them while in prison face a particularly high risk of death or 

mistreatment. Id. at 6. 

The intentional withholding of medical care for the purpose of extortion or 

punishment satisfies the five-part definition of torture set forth in Matter of 

J-E-, supra. First, intentional denial of medical care is a vicious act intended 

to cause extreme physical and mental pain and suffering and, as shown in the 

Country Reports, all too often results in death. The mental anguish is 

increased by the victims’ knowledge that, upon death, they will be buried in 

489
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2002) Interim Decision #3480 

unmarked communal graves within the prison compound without notification 

to anyone. 

Second, mistreatment inflicted for extortion or punishment is obviously 

intentional, not accidental, negligent, or merely the natural consequence of 

living in a poor country. Third, withholding medical treatment for purposes 

of extortion or punishment constitutes an impermissible “proscribed purpose.” 

Fourth, this mistreatment is carried out by government prison officials 

having both official custody and physical control of the victims. The 

Nigerian Government clearly knows of its occurrence, because the public 

reports of our own State Department and reputable nongovernmental 

organizations (“NGOs”) reflect that such official mistreatment occurs. 

Finally, while it is possible that Nigeria’s jailing of foreign-convicted drug 

offenders, by itself, is a “lawful sanction” under Matter of J-E-, supra, 

intentionally denying such prisoners needed medical treatment for reasons of 

extortion and punishment is not a lawful sanction. Indeed, “torture” can never 

be a “lawful sanction” under the terms of 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(3). 

B. Respondent’s Personal Characteristics Make Torture Likely 

The respondent is a woman, suffering from chronic asthma, without family 

to support and assist her in Nigeria, returning from the United States with a 

drug conviction. Decree No. 33, discussed by the majority, shows, at a 

minimum, that the Nigerian Government has a particular interest in those 

returning with foreign drug convictions. 

The respondent’s combination of personal traits places her in a particularly 

high-risk category to suffer torture through the intentional denial of medical 

treatment for her chronic asthma by Nigerian prison officials bent upon 

improperly punishing or extorting her. Her situation is therefore closer to the 

individualized claim of the successful applicant in Matter of G-A- than it is 

to the unsuccessful applicant in Matter of J-E- who presented a more 

“generic” claim. Consequently, I find that the respondent more likely than not 

will be tortured if imprisoned in Nigeria. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the respondent more likely than 

not will be tortured by intentional, malicious withholding of needed medical 

care when imprisoned upon her return to Nigeria. I therefore would grant her 

deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and would deny the 

motion to reconsider. Consequently, I respectfully dissent. 

490