Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

torthearingmotion

tortmotionrespondent

Related Cases

Marqus v. Barr

Facts

Ammar Isam Marqus, a native of Iraq, was admitted to the U.S. as a refugee in 2012 and later became a Lawful Permanent Resident. In 2017, he was convicted of attempted criminal sexual conduct, leading to removal proceedings initiated by the government. During his removal hearing, the Immigration Judge admitted some expert declarations but excluded one from a country-conditions expert. The IJ ultimately ordered Marqus removed, finding him ineligible for withholding of removal under the INA or CAT due to his conviction.

Marqus is a native and citizen of Iraq and was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2012. A.R. at 219. He later adjusted his status to Lawful Permanent Resident. A.R. at 220. In 2017, he was convicted of attempted criminal sexual conduct under MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS 750.520d(1)(b). A.R. at 220. As a result, the Government served him with a Notice to Appear and initiated removal proceedings. Id.

Issue

Did the BIA err in denying Marqus's CAT claim and his motion to remand for consideration of new evidence?

Rule

To obtain CAT relief, an applicant must demonstrate a particularized and likely threat of torture at the hands of a public official, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.

An applicant seeking CAT relief must demonstrate that she faces a particularized and likely threat of torture at the hands of a public official, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2) , 1208.18(a)(1) ; Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 751 (6th Cir. 2006).

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Marqus faced a high likelihood of torture based on his status and circumstances. It found that while there was evidence indicating a risk of torture for Chaldean Christians, the government presented credible evidence that countered Marqus's claims. The court concluded that the IJ and BIA properly considered the evidence and did not err in their findings.

Nothing in the BIA's or the IJ's decisions suggests that they failed to consider Marqus's probability of torture in the aggregate. To the contrary, the BIA found that 'the record does not reflect that the respondent is more likely than not to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official in Iraq.' A.R. at 7 (emphasis added). This conclusion captures conduct by both the Iraqi government and the PMF, which Marqus alleges pose independent threats.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, remanding the case for further proceedings regarding the new evidence while upholding the denial of CAT relief.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision denying CAT relief to Marqus.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Melnik v. Sessions

Kane v. Holder

Richard Dattner Architects; U.S. v.

Zeqiri v. Mukasey

Angeles v. Johnson