Elianaise Mervil v. Loretta E. Lynch, 813 F.3d 1108

Petitioner Elianaise Mervil, a Haitian national, entered the U.S. in 1981 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1988.
In 1997 Mervil was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride.
After completion of her sentence, DHS initiated removal proceedings charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B) (controlled substance offense) and § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony); Mervil conceded removability.
Mervil applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting risk of arrest, imprisonment, and deplorable treatment in Haiti due to her criminal-deportee status and past Haitian army affiliation/desertion.
The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied CAT relief, finding Mervil failed to show it was more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of Haitian officials.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the BIA applied the correct legal standard—following Cherichel v. Holder—and rejected Mervil’s request to revisit the specific-intent requirement for torture under the CAT regulations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mervil established entitlement to CAT relief (more likely than not tortured)	Mervil: her status as a criminal deportee and past army ties make it likely Haitian officials will arrest, imprison, and subject her to severe treatment	BIA/Respondent: petitioner failed to show any official would specifically intend to inflict severe pain or acquiesce to torture; record insufficient to meet CAT standard	Held: Petition denied — petitioner did not show it was more likely than not she would be tortured under the regulatory definition
Whether Cherichel’s specific-intent requirement for torture should be reconsidered	Mervil: urges overruling Cherichel, arguing specific intent is not required for an act to qualify as torture under CAT	Respondent: Cherichel is binding precedent in this circuit and requires specific intent; this panel cannot overrule it	Held: Court adheres to Cherichel; panel has no authority to overrule circuit precedent, so specific-intent standard applies

Cherichel v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2010) (interpreting CAT regulations to require a persecutor’s specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering)
Drake v. Scott, 812 F.2d 395 (8th Cir. 1987) (one panel of the court cannot overrule precedent set by another panel)