Barry v. Barr, 916 F.3d 666

Background

Barry, a Guinean national, lived in the U.S. for over 20 years after leaving Guinea in 1998; he was convicted of an aggravated felony (conspiracy to commit robbery) and ordered removed.
Barry applied for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming risk of torture if returned to Guinea due to his father’s past opposition politics and Barry’s bisexuality.
Testimony: Barry and his mother credibly described a violent 1990s incident in which soldiers targeted the family seeking Barry’s father; both have not returned to Guinea and have limited current ties.
Documentary evidence included two Guinean court summonses (1998 and 2016) that Barry could not authenticate and a 2016 U.S. State Department country report describing laws criminalizing same-sex conduct and generalized hostility toward homosexuals.
The immigration judge and BIA found Barry credible but concluded the evidence was speculative, outdated, or generalized and did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of Guinean officials.
Barry conceded his aggravated-felony conviction renders him ineligible for withholding of removal under the INA as a “particularly serious crime.”

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barry met CAT burden of proving it is "more likely than not" he would be tortured if removed to Guinea	Barry: past targeting of his family, unauthenticated summonses, country report, and his bisexuality create a substantial risk of torture	DHS/BIA: evidence is speculative, stale, unauthenticated, and shows only generalized country conditions, not particularized government-sanctioned risk	Denied — record does not compel finding of more likely than not risk of torture
Whether past abuses suffice to establish future risk under CAT	Barry: childhood abuse by soldiers supports inference of future risk	DHS/BIA: past incidents are decades old and do not by themselves establish present risk	Denied — past abuse considered but not dispositive without current corroboration
Whether generalized country conditions (laws against homosexuality and societal hostility) meet CAT’s particularized risk requirement	Barry: criminalization and societal violence against LGBT persons indicate risk of torture	DHS/BIA: country report shows generalized hostility but no evidence of government torture or prosecutions tied to sexual orientation	Denied — generalized reports insufficient absent evidence of government complicity or targeting
Evidentiary weight of unauthenticated Guinean summonses	Barry: summonses indicate officials still seek his family	DHS/BIA: summonses unauthenticated and unexplained, so entitled to little weight	Denied — summonses given limited weight for lack of authentication and foundation

Key Cases Cited

Bernard v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 1042 (7th Cir. 2018) (interprets CAT ‘‘more likely than not’’ as requiring substantial risk of torture)
Rodriguez-Molinero v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard for substantial risk under CAT)
Perez v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2018) (application of CAT substantial-risk analysis)
Lopez v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 484 (7th Cir. 2016) (government acquiescence requirement for CAT)
Lozano-Zuniga v. Lynch, 832 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2016) (generalized country violence insufficient for CAT; need particularized targeting)
Orellana-Arias v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017) (factors immigration judge must consider for CAT claims)
Jabateh v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 332 (7th Cir. 2017) (reviewing IJ and BIA reasoning together)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (substantial-evidence standard for overturning agency fact findings)
Abraham v. Holder, 647 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2011) (review limited to compelled different-result standard)
Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2010) (unauthenticated evidence may be given little weight)
Silais v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2017) (private violence requires government complicity or inability/unwillingness to prevent it for CAT)
Lenjinac v. Holder, 780 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2015) (reports of torture in country insufficient absent showing petitioner’s personal risk)
Rashiah v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2004) (general country reports insufficient for withholding/CAT without individualized risk)