## Facts

- S-V-, a native and citizen of Colombia, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1981.
- In 1998, he was convicted in Florida of grand theft, resisting arrest without violence, driving with a suspended license, and robbery, and received concurrent four-year prison sentences.
- After a final order of removal, he moved to reopen proceedings to seek (1) statutory withholding of removal and (2) protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- He claimed he would be targeted in Colombia by guerrilla, narcotrafficking, and paramilitary groups, particularly through kidnapping and harsh captivity conditions.
- His CAT theory rested on the assertion that Colombian authorities were no longer able to control kidnapping and armed groups nationwide, and that he would be singled out because he had family in the United States and spoke Spanish poorly.

## Issues

1. Whether CAT protection requires a showing that feared torture would be inflicted by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, rather than by groups the government is merely unable to control.
2. How “acquiescence” is defined under CAT implementing regulations, including whether “awareness” includes willful blindness.
3. Whether the respondent’s evidence established prima facie eligibility for CAT protection under the “more likely than not” standard and the required degree of government involvement.
4. Whether the respondent was barred from withholding of removal based on his criminal convictions and sentence.

## Decision

- The Board of Immigration Appeals (en banc) denied the motion to reopen.
- The Board held the respondent was ineligible for withholding of removal due to his criminal history and sentence.
- The Board held CAT relief requires torture inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official (or person acting in an official capacity), and does not cover harm by actors a government is simply unable to control.
- The Board interpreted “acquiescence” to require a public official’s awareness of torture and a breach of a legal duty to intervene; “awareness” includes both actual knowledge and willful blindness.
- The Board concluded the respondent did not make a prima facie CAT showing because his claim focused on non-state actors and governmental inability to control them, without sufficient evidence that officials would instigate, consent to, or acquiesce in his torture.

## Legal Principles

- A motion to reopen requires a showing of prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.
- CAT protection requires proof that it is more likely than not the applicant would be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
- Government “acquiescence” requires that officials are aware of the torture and then breach a legal responsibility to intervene; awareness includes willful blindness.
- Generalized violence, kidnapping risk, or weak state control—without evidence tying the feared torture to official consent or acquiescence—does not satisfy CAT’s government-involvement requirement.
- Certain serious criminal convictions and sentences may statutorily bar withholding of removal, though they do not necessarily bar CAT protection.

## Conclusion

The BIA refused to reopen removal proceedings because the respondent was barred from withholding and failed to show prima facie CAT eligibility: fear of kidnapping and abuse by non-state armed groups, coupled with a government’s inability to control them, is insufficient absent evidence that public officials would knowingly permit, be willfully blind to, or otherwise acquiesce in the torture.


Matter of S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306 (B.I.A. 2000)