120 F.4th 913
1st Cir.2024Background
- Akeish Johnioy Morgan, a Jamaican national, entered the United States unlawfully in June 2022 after a warrant was issued in Jamaica for murder and related charges.
- Morgan applied for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging persecution by a gang affiliated with a political party and acquiescence by Jamaican police.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding Morgan ineligible due to "serious reasons to believe" he committed a serious nonpolitical crime (based on Jamaican warrants and police reports) and found insufficient likelihood of future torture for CAT Deferral.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, holding the evidence established probable cause for the serious nonpolitical crime bar and insufficient objective corroboration for police acquiescence to torture.
- Morgan petitioned for review, challenging application of the serious nonpolitical crime bar and the BIA's legal standard governing "acquiescence" under the CAT for Deferral relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of serious nonpolitical crime bar | Warrants and police report insufficient; lacks probable cause; did not consider innocence | Documents provide probable cause; agency need not apply Jamaican standard | Agency’s finding supported by substantial evidence; bar applies |
| Definition of “acquiescence” under CAT | Agency used overly narrow definition requiring active cooperation, excluding mere inaction | Mere inaction does not amount to acquiescence (citing prior case law) | Remanded: Agency erred; should consider whether inaction + awareness = acquiescence per regs |
| Torture by police as basis for CAT Deferral | Past police beating was torture under CAT | Argument not raised before BIA; should be deemed unexhausted | Not reached; argument unexhausted |
| Use of country conditions for future torture | Country reports and testimony show generalized risk upon return to Jamaica | General evidence insufficient without specific risk to petitioner | Agency did not err; general conditions not enough without individualized risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 520 (1st Cir. 2023) (substantial evidence review standard for agency findings)
- Varela-Chavarria v. Garland, 86 F.4th 443 (1st Cir. 2023) (court reviews legal conclusions de novo)
- Hernandez-Martinez v. Garland, 59 F.4th 33 (1st Cir. 2023) (past torture relevant but not dispositive for future torture under CAT)
- Murillo Morocho v. Garland, 80 F.4th 61 (1st Cir. 2023) (acquiescence defined as awareness plus breach of duty to intervene)
- Bazile v. Garland, 76 F.4th 5 (1st Cir. 2023) (general conditions evidence insufficient—must show specific risk)