Doe v. Holder, 763 F.3d 251

Doe, a Ghanaian native and US lawful permanent resident, was arrested after admitting he expected a heroin-laden package addressed to him.
Doe admitted participation in an international drug-smuggling ring and arranged a controlled delivery with federal agents, leading to arrests and convictions of others involved.
Doe pled guilty to a related information and conceded removability based on an aggravated felony and controlled-substance offense.
Doe sought CAT and CATOC protections; the CATOC claim was deemed non-justiciable in immigration court due to lack of agency jurisdiction.
BIA rejected Doe’s CATOC, CAT, state-created danger, and equitable estoppel claims, concluding CATOC claims are not removable protections under non-self-executing treaty law.
This petition for review centers on whether CATOC’s witness-protection provisions are self-executing and enforceable without implementing legislation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are CATOC article 24 witness protections self-executing?	Doe contends CATOC is self-executing and privately enforceable.	Holder argues CATOC is not self-executing and requires implementing legislation.	Not self-executing; relief denied.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (U.S. 2008) (treaties are self-executing only when Congress and President show intent)
Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (interpretations entitled to weight but not controlling)
Mora v. New York, 524 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2008) (text and context determine self-execution)
United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2011) (self-execution inquiry requires federal-state-law context)
Guo v. Dep’t of Justice, 422 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2005) (Senate’s view on self-execution matters)
In re G-K-,, 26 I. & N. Dec. 88 (BIA 2013) (BIA held CATOC protections are not self-executing)
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (treaty rights may be considered alongside statutory framework)