US precedent requires individual torture-risk evidence

A newly designated precedent

Matter of K-Y-V-R-, 30 I&N Dec. 203, was designated as precedent by an Attorney General order dated 27 October; the Board’s underlying decision was issued on 10 September. It reverses a grant of Convention Against Torture protection because the predicted future harm and obstacles to relocation were not adequately supported by the record. The decision concerns an individual case, not a declaration that an entire country is safe. Official source.

The test is specific to CAT protection

The judgment addresses whether torture is more likely than not, under the applicable CAT regulations. It explains the need to identify likely future treatment and assess it against the legal definition, which includes the required connection to public officials. Country violence can be relevant, but the decision requires an evidential connection between those conditions and what is likely to happen to this applicant.

Why the record mattered

The case involved past gang recruitment of a Salvadoran minor who left in 2015. The Board identified missing evidence of continued targeting and unsupported assumptions about relocation difficulties. It did not decide the government-acquiescence issue because the failure to establish the necessary future risk was dispositive. Reporting it as a ruling that government acquiescence can never exist would therefore misstate what was decided.

A clearly hypothetical example

An applicant may have a recent threat directed at them, while another relies only on a national report describing widespread violence. Those records require different analysis. A useful submission explains the source, date and credibility of a threat, the actor’s ability to reach the applicant and the relevance of local conditions. The existence of a threatening message alone does not establish every element of CAT protection.

Keep the legal routes distinct

Asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection have different requirements; the standard discussed here should not be mechanically substituted for another route’s test. Evidence should address the particular relief sought. Where relocation is material, explain actual personal circumstances and practical constraints rather than assuming that every place in the country is either equally dangerous or automatically available to the person.

What an individual review should cover

Bring the full decision, previous statements, country evidence and any new material to a qualified adviser promptly if a deadline is approaching. Check which findings were made, which issues remain undecided and what review is procedurally available. This precedent highlights unsupported predictions; it does not authorise ignoring credible individual risk or replace a fact-sensitive assessment of the applicant’s circumstances.

Legal check date

Sources and law checked on 30 October 2026. Later developments are not reflected automatically. Application of the rules depends on the individual facts.