## Facts

- Respondent, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States in 1981, became a lawful permanent resident in 1989, and was later convicted in federal court of drug-trafficking offenses.
- The government initiated removal proceedings based on an aggravated felony and controlled-substance conviction; the respondent conceded removability.
- Because the convictions barred most relief, the only claim litigated was deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The respondent asserted she would be detained in Nigeria under Decree No. 33, which authorizes imprisonment of Nigerian nationals convicted abroad of drug-trafficking offenses.
- She feared that detention would involve beatings, rape, and denial of medical care for serious health conditions.
- She offered an anecdote that a friend with a similar foreign drug conviction was imprisoned after return and released only after family members bribed guards.
- The record included general country-conditions materials describing poor prison conditions and abuse in Nigeria, but contained limited evidence on whether Decree 33 was actually enforced against U.S.-deported Nigerian drug offenders and what treatment such returnees typically faced.

## Issues

1. Whether the respondent proved that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured in Nigeria by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official, as required for CAT deferral.
2. Whether evidence of Decree No. 33, combined with general reports of prison abuse, sufficiently established a probability of torture for persons similarly situated to the respondent.

## Decision

- The Board of Immigration Appeals (en banc) granted the government’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the prior panel decision granting CAT protection, and dismissed the appeal.
- The Board reinstated the Immigration Judge’s denial of CAT deferral.
- The Board held that the respondent failed to meet the “more likely than not” burden because the evidence regarding the enforcement of Decree No. 33 and the likelihood of torture was insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- An applicant for CAT protection bears the burden to prove it is more likely than not that she will be subjected to “torture” in the country of removal.
- “Torture” requires intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting under color of law.
- General evidence of harsh, violent, or corrupt prison conditions does not, without more, establish a probability of torture; the applicant must present specific, objective evidence tying likely harm to the regulatory definition of torture and to official intent or acquiescence.
- Evidence that a foreign law authorizes detention is not enough unless the record shows how the law is actually enforced and that enforcement makes torture more likely than not for the applicant or similarly situated persons.
- Credible fear and anecdotal accounts, without adequate corroboration and broader evidence of consistent application, may be insufficient to satisfy the CAT probability standard.

## Conclusion

The en banc Board denied CAT deferral because the respondent did not show, with sufficiently specific and objective evidence, that Nigeria would likely enforce Decree No. 33 against her in a manner that would more likely than not result in intentional torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials.


Matter of M-B-A-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 474 (B.I.A. 2002)