Hugues Martine v. Loretta Lynch, 840 F.3d 1002

Martine, admitted to the U.S. as a refugee from Haiti in 1993 and adjusted to LPR in 1994 based on past persecution of his family.
In 2010 Martine was convicted by jury of second-degree drug trafficking (an aggravated felony) after a police chase and drugs were found in his car.
Following his criminal conviction, immigration proceedings were initiated; Martine applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in December 2014.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied CAT relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding Martine failed to show it was "more likely than not" he would be tortured if returned to Haiti.
Martine petitioned for review, arguing the IJ/BIA applied the wrong legal standard by not presuming a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his prior refugee status and past persecution.
The court dismissed the petition, finding lack of jurisdiction to review some claims and that the IJ/BIA applied the correct legal standard for CAT relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether past persecution (refugee admission) creates a presumption of future torture for CAT	Martine: refugee admission and past persecution entitle him to a presumption of well-founded fear and support for CAT relief	Government/BIA: asylum presumption differs from CAT; CAT requires specific "more likely than not" showing of torture, distinct legal standard	Held: No presumption for CAT; IJ/BIA applied correct CAT standard
Whether IJ/BIA erred by relying on cases like Cherichel and Matter of J-E-	Martine: agency incorrectly analogized or relied on those precedents to deny relief	Government/BIA: reliance on those precedents was appropriate to assess likelihood and intent of torturers	Held: Reliance was proper; Cherichel’s standard about showing intent/purpose remains applicable
Whether factual-challenge aspects of Martine’s claim are reviewable	Martine: factual record compels different legal outcome	Government/BIA: factual determinations are agency questions outside court’s review under INA	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review agency factual findings under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)/(D)

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (defines when state drug offenses qualify as federal "drug trafficking" for immigration law)
Cherichel v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2010) (explains CAT relief requires showing prospective torturer’s goal/intent to inflict severe suffering for an enumerated purpose)
Lovan v. Holder, 574 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2009) (agency factual determinations in removal proceedings are generally unreviewable)
Brikova v. Holder, 699 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2012) (limits on judicial review of factual disputes in immigration petitions)
Gallimore v. Holder, 715 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2013) (reiterates that courts may not reweigh evidence and facts decided by immigration authorities)