Samayoa Cabrera v. Barr, 939 F.3d 379

Background

Juan Alecio Samayoa Cabrera, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1992; an initial asylum claim was denied and he later obtained a temporary U visa that expired by 2017, prompting renewed removal proceedings.
In 2017 removal proceedings Samayoa conceded unlawful entry but sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging he would be imprisoned and tortured in Guatemala based on notoriety from alleged wartime crimes.
At the IJ level Samayoa limited his claim to an imprisonment-based risk of torture; the IJ found him not credible and concluded he had not shown a particularized, more-than-likely risk of torture; the BIA affirmed.
On appeal Samayoa argued (1) the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to legal questions about what constitutes torture, (2) the BIA improperly accepted the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, and (3) the record nonetheless compels a finding of a particularized risk of torture if imprisoned.
The First Circuit analyzed standards of review (fact/prediction vs. legal), exhaustion of administrative remedies regarding credibility, and whether the documentary record compelled a contrary factual finding; it denied the petition in part and dismissed in part.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for whether predicted treatment constitutes "torture"	BIA applied clear-error to what is a legal question and should have reviewed de novo	BIA correctly treated predictive findings as factual (clear-error) and legal application as de novo; the opinion shows this distinction	Court: BIA did not misapply standards; no reversible error
Jurisdiction to review IJ adverse-credibility finding	Samayoa says the government relied on credibility before the BIA so the issue was fairly before the BIA	Government/BIA noted Samayoa did not challenge credibility on appeal; BIA affirmed on that basis	Court: Samayoa failed to exhaust; lacks jurisdiction to review the adverse-credibility finding (dismissed)
Sufficiency of evidence for particularized imprisonment-based CAT risk	Record compels finding he would be singled out in prison and tortured due to notoriety/charges	Record shows warrants/arrest risk but not evidence he would face distinctive, government-acquiesced torture beyond ordinary prison conditions	Court: Substantial-evidence standard satisfied by IJ/BIA; petition denied on merits
Social-media and documentary evidence showing intent/means to torture in prison	Samayoa points to social-media posts and country reports as evidence of targeted risk	Such posts do not show intent or capability to torture him in prison; documentary evidence is general and non-particularized	Court: Insufficient to compel contrary finding; evidence does not establish particularized torture risk

Key Cases Cited

Settenda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 89 (1st Cir. 2004) (defining elements of "torture" under CAT)
Elien v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2004) (CAT/torture definition and standards)
Liu Jin Lin v. Holder, 723 F.3d 300 (1st Cir. 2013) (distinguishing factual predictive findings from legal questions on relief)
Rosales Justo v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 154 (1st Cir. 2018) (substantial-evidence review of IJ findings adopted by the BIA)
Mazariegos-Paiz v. Holder, 734 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2013) (administrative-exhaustion rule for BIA issues)
Enwonwu v. Gonzáles, [citation="232 F. App'x 11"] (1st Cir. 2007) (presumption of regularity in BIA acts)
Samayoa Cabrera v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2004) (prior appeal concerning petitioner)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (issues briefed perfunctorily are waived)