Background
Patria Laureano, a Dominican Republic citizen and former lawful permanent resident, was removed from the United States in 2008 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute over one kilogram of heroin. The conviction followed her cooperation with law enforcement after her abusive ex-partner sent drugs to her workplace in 2005, and he subsequently threatened to kill her for cooperating. Laureano unlawfully reentered the country in 2009 and remained undetected until her 2023 arrest. After her 2023 reinstatement removal order, she sought withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, arguing she feared her former partner in the Dominican Republic and that Dominican police would not protect her.
The Immigration Judge denied both applications, finding that Laureano’s heroin trafficking conviction constituted a “particularly serious crime” under the Attorney General’s precedent (Matter of Y-L-) that presumptively bars withholding relief, and that she failed to establish a likelihood of torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this decision in full.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Circuit addressed threshold questions about its jurisdiction to review withholding-only determinations absent a challenge to removability itself. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedent in Riley v. Bondi, the panel held it possessed jurisdiction to review both the CAT and withholding denials under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), reading the statute to permit appellate courts to review withholding-only decisions once a final removal order is issued, even if the petitioner does not contest the underlying removability determination.
On CAT relief, the panel unanimously affirmed the BIA. Laureano bore the burden of showing it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed and that government officials would cause or acquiesce to torture. The court found that although Laureano’s ex-partner abused her years earlier, the incidents occurred approximately fifteen years ago, the relationship was not characterized by forced confinement or severe ongoing beatings, and the passage of time weighed against finding a likelihood of future torture.
On statutory withholding, the panel fractured. Judge Shwartz included a separate view (to minimize multiple opinions) arguing that the statute allows individualized assessments of whether crimes constitute particularly serious crimes, contrary to the categorical presumption established in Matter of Y-L-. However, the panel contained three different views among three judges on the merits, resulting in an equally divided vote. One judge would deny the petition (supporting the BIA’s reliance on Y-L-); another would grant it and remand (finding Y-L- ultra vires); and a third would dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Because no majority position emerged, the petition was denied by an equally divided vote, leaving the BIA’s order intact without precedential weight.
Key Takeaways
- Courts of appeals possess jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review withholding-only determinations even when petitioners do not challenge removability, following Riley v. Bondi.
- Under CAT, passage of time and the absence of ongoing, severe violence weigh heavily against establishing a future likelihood of torture, even when past abuse occurred.
- The validity of categorical presumptions for drug trafficking crimes as “particularly serious crimes” remains unsettled; the panel’s split vote suggests the issue may warrant further appellate attention.
- A petitioner convicted of drug trafficking must demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances to rebut the presumption that the offense constitutes a particularly serious crime under Y-L-.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies post-Riley jurisdictional rules for withholding-only relief petitions, confirming that courts of appeals need not require petitioners to challenge their removability to obtain appellate review of CAT or withholding denials. The equal division on the withholding question signals genuine uncertainty within the judiciary about whether the Attorney General’s categorical approach to drug trafficking convictions in Matter of Y-L- aligns with statutory text and congressional intent. Judge Shwartz’s separate view articulates a textual and structural argument that the withholding statute, unlike its asylum counterpart, contemplates individualized assessments rather than categorical rules—an argument that may gain traction if the question reaches higher courts or receives future panel attention.
The case also reinforces that CAT protection requires clear evidence of likely future torture, not merely past abuse, and that changed circumstances over time can substantially diminish an applicant’s prospects, even when the original threat was serious.