Opinion ID: 794060
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Regulatory System Today

Text: 37 Regulations promulgated by the Attorney General in 1999 established a procedure for asserting claims to relief under the Convention. See Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed.Reg. 8478-01 (Feb. 19, 1999) (codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c), 208.17-18). The regulations adopted the Convention's definition of torture in Article 1 practically verbatim, merely inserting female pronouns to render its language gender-neutral. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). They incorporated that Article's language providing that [t]orture does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions, id. § 208.18(a)(3), adding, in accord with the Senate's understanding, that lawful sanctions do not include sanctions that defeat the object and purpose of the Convention Against Torture to prohibit torture, id. In order to establish entitlement to relief under the Convention, the regulations, again in accordance with the Senate's understanding, place on the applicant the burden to prove that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal, id. § 208.16(c)(2) & (4). In determining whether the applicant has met this burden, relevant evidence that should be considered includes any evidence that the applicant has been tortured in the past, evidence that the applicant could relocate to another part of the country where torture would be unlikely, evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal, and any other relevant information regarding conditions in that country. Id. § 208.16(c)(3). 38 The Convention Against Torture provides significantly different protections from those provided under the traditional asylum and withholding provisions descended from the 1951 Refugee Convention. See, e.g., Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 184-85 (noting that alien could qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture but not for asylum or withholding, or vice versa, and so claims under the Convention must always be considered independently of claims for asylum or withholding). Individuals are protected against torture regardless of whether such torture would be on account of one of the traditional protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In accord with the Senate's understanding, even torture sanctioned by the alien's country of origin for his criminal conduct will sometimes establish entitlement to relief. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir.2003) ([A]n alien is not entitled to CAT relief unless he can prove that, upon being returned to his country of origin, he is more likely than not to suffer intentionally-inflicted cruel and inhuman treatment that either (1) is not lawfully sanctioned by that country or (2) is lawfully sanctioned by that country, but defeats the object and purpose of CAT.). On the other hand, torture requires proof of something more severe than the kind of treatment that would suffice to prove persecution. See, e.g., Chen, 359 F.3d at 128 (stating that persecution in the asylum context means that, although the conduct must rise above mere harassment, the term includes more than threats to life or freedom; non-life threatening violence and physical abuse also fall within this category (internal quotation marks omitted)); Liao, 293 F.3d at 67 (Persecution has been held to include [v]arious types of conduct . . . such as, for example, the deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage); Begzatowski v. INS, 278 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Cir.2002) (stating that [t]ypes of actions that might cross the line from harassment to persecution include: detention, arrest, interrogation, prosecution, imprisonment, illegal searches, confiscation of property, surveillance, beatings, or torture. (internal quotation marks omitted)). 39