Opinion ID: 625139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relief Pursuant to the Convention Against Torture

Text: Both the IJ and BIA found that Petitioners had failed to meet their burden for relief under the CAT, since they had not established that it is more likely than not that they would be subject to torture by or with the acquiescence of a member of the government of Bangladesh upon their return. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2) (indicating burden of proof) & 208.18(a)(1) (defining torture). [8] In their challenge to this finding, Petitioners indicate only that they should be granted relief since there is a clear probability that they will suffer torture if returned to Bangladesh. However, it is a petitioner's burden to prove entitlement to relief under the CAT, see Sulaiman v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 347, 351 (1st Cir.2005) (petitioner's burden of proof for relief under the CAT is as high as in withholding of removal context, the petitioner has to show that it is more likely than not that he will be [] tortured in his country of origin), and the IJ found that respondents presented little, if any, evidence to substantiate their claim. See also Romilus, 385 F.3d at 8 (indicating there is no subjective component to a claim for relief under the CAT and that [t]o establish a prima facie claim under the CAT, an applicant must offer specific objective evidence showing that he will be subject to [torture] in proposed country of removal). Under our deferential standard of review, Petitioners have offered us no reason to disturb the IJ and BIA's substantially supported findings on this ground. See id. at 5. We must therefore deny the petition for review of the Petitioners' claim for relief under the CAT.