Opinion ID: 1354339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wakkary's Claim for Relief Under the Convention Against Torture

Text: Finally, Wakkary argues that the BIA erred in denying his claim for relief under the CAT. He argues that the BIA erred in failing to apply disfavored group analysis in assessing his CAT claim, or in the alternative, that even without disfavored group analysis, the record compels the conclusion that he is eligible for CAT relief. To demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal under the CAT, an alien must show that it is more likely than not that a government official or person acting in an official capacity would torture him or aid or acquiesce in his torture by others. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2), 208.18(a)(1). The standard of proofmore than fifty percentis the same as for regular withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Unlike regular withholding of removal, though, the regulations that implement the CAT do not specify two routes (a pattern or practice route and a singled out individually route) by which an applicant may establish that likelihood. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Rather, the CAT regulations cast a wide evidentiary net, providing that all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered, including, but not limited to ... evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal, where applicable, and other relevant information regarding conditions in the country of removal. Id. In a sense, then, Wakkary is arguing for a rule that is already effectively required by the regulations themselvesgiven our understanding that disfavored group analysis is simply an evidentiary approach to determine the risk that faces an alien if he is returned to the country from which he fled. Widespread mistreatment of a certain group of people may well be relevant to an applicant's claim that he faces a clear probability of torture upon return, depending upon the facts of the case. That this is so is not a product of Sael so much as it is necessitated by the CAT regulations themselves. In Wakkary's case, however, the record contains no evidence whatsoever that Wakkary is likely to be tortured, rather than persecuted, by government officials or with their acquiescence on return to Indonesia. The CAT regulations define torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.... 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Wakkary has presented some evidence that torture occurs in Indonesiafor example, against certain detainees in military or police custodybut he has offered no evidence that he is likely to find himself in such a position, or that torture is used against members of the Chinese Christian minority. While Wakkary need not show that the torture he fears would be on account of any of the five protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group, he must still provide some reason to think that he is likely to be tortured by the actors he fears. There being no such evidence in the record, we affirm the BIA's denial on this point.