Tehram Roye v. Atty Gen USA
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18967
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Roye, a Jamaican native, immigrated to the U.S. in 1984 as a spouse of a U.S. citizen.
- In 1992 he pled guilty in Pennsylvania to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child, receiving a prison term.
- DHS later charged him as removable under an aggravated felony conviction.
- Roye sought CAT deferral of removal, claiming prospects of torture if returned to Jamaica with government acquiescence or consent.
- An IJ granted CAT deferral, but the BIA reversed on appeal, remanding later for Kaplun-based reconsideration; the Third Circuit now reviews the BIA’s decision.
- On remand, the BIA again denied deferral, focusing on the government’s intent to torture rather than the acts of torture itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA correctly applied CAT standard on torture | Roye argues BIA conflated torture with willful blindness and ignored intent of assailants. | Roye’s asylum claim rests on the public official’s specific intent; the BIA followed Kaplun and sought evidence of intent to torture. | Remand warranted; BIA erred by misapplying specific-intent standard. |
| Whether willful blindness constitutes acquiescence under CAT | Willful blindness by Jamaican officials can satisfy acquiescence. | Willful blindness is insufficient to prove government acquiescence under CAT. | BIA error; acquiescence can be shown by willful blindness under Silva-Rengifo. |
| Whether the case should be remanded to address public-official consent/acquiescence | Fact-finding on official consent should be revisited. | Remand not limited to factual inquiry; legal standard governs. | Remand appropriate to re-evaluate consent/acquiescence under correct standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierre v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S., 528 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc; requires specific intent beyond knowledge that pain will occur)
- Kaplun v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S., 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (established de novo vs clearly erroneous standard for consents/acquiescence point)
- Silva-Rengifo v. Att'y Gen., 473 F.3d 58 (3d Cir. 2007) (acquiescence includes willful blindness; must consider official consent/acquiescence)
- Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) (three-step Abdulai framework for CAT analysis (with corroboration))
- Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (applies more-likely-than-not standard and CAT elements)
- Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) (examines intent in CAT torture analysis)