Background
Bryan Javier Molina Canales, his wife, Madelin Rocio Sarmiento Alas, and their daughter, Emily Leticia Molina Sarmiento—all natives and citizens of Honduras—petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of relief. Although the wife and daughter had been derivative beneficiaries of Molina Canales’s asylum application, he did not appeal the denial of asylum, and they could not receive derivative relief on his claim under the Convention Against Torture.
Molina Canales relied on past and anticipated death threats and argued that Honduran authorities had acquiesced, or would acquiesce, in his mistreatment. He also pointed to the shooting of a coworker employed by the same utility company. The immigration judge reviewed his evidence and denied CAT protection, and the BIA found no error in that analysis.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. It held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that Molina Canales had not shown he was more likely than not to suffer harm amounting to torture if returned to Honduras. He offered no evidence that anyone there was currently looking for him, and the nonimmediate death threats he had received—without accompanying physical harm—did not constitute past torture.
The court also concluded that the coworker’s shooting did not compel a different result because Molina Canales presented no definitive evidence connecting the shooting to the coworker’s employment at the utility company. Because the evidence did not compel a finding that Molina Canales was likely to be tortured, the court declined to address his arguments concerning governmental acquiescence.
Key Takeaways
- Nonimmediate death threats, without physical harm, did not amount to torture on the record presented.
- Evidence that a coworker was shot did not establish a likelihood of future torture absent a demonstrated connection between the shooting and their shared employment.
- Because the likelihood-of-torture element was unsupported, the court did not reach whether Honduran officials would acquiesce in the alleged mistreatment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a CAT applicant must present evidence compelling the conclusion that torture is more likely than not upon removal. Threats and violence involving others may be insufficient when the record does not establish an ongoing threat to the applicant or a concrete connection between the cited violence and the applicant’s circumstances.
It also illustrates that courts may deny CAT relief based solely on failure to prove likely torture, without deciding the separate governmental-acquiescence requirement.