Matter of J-E-L-: What the New BIA CAT Decision Means for Your Immigration Case

Matter of J-E-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2026)

By M. Ray Arvand, Esq. | The Law Office of M. Ray Arvand, P.C.

A new BIA precedent decision raises the bar for Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims in a significant way. If you or someone you know is seeking protection from removal based on fear of gang or cartel violence, this case is essential reading. Here is what happened, what the Board held, and what it means for pending and future CAT cases.

1. What Happened in Matter of J-E-L-

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who cooperated with United States law enforcement in 2009 to incarcerate two gang members, one of whom was his own relative. After his cooperation, he was removed from the United States and returned to Mexico, where he lived for approximately 13 years.

During those 13 years, the respondent received threats by phone and through posters. His house was shot at in 2010 while he lived in Zacatecas and again in 2015 while he lived in Jalisco. Each time, he relocated. He never had direct, in-person contact with the people threatening him, though he believed the Surenos gang and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) were responsible.

In March 2023, the respondent and his wife filed a report with the public ministry in Jalisco. The following month, he was kidnapped outside his home, held for several days, and mistreated before managing to escape. He does not know who kidnapped him. After escaping, he relocated to Colima, where he had no further problems. He entered the United States in November 2023 through the CBP One application.

The Immigration Judge found the respondent generally credible and granted deferral of removal under the CAT. DHS appealed, and on May 4, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed.

The citation is Matter of J-E-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2026).

Attorney's Note: This is a BIA Interim Decision (#4190). It is binding precedent on all Immigration Judges and BIA panels. If you have a pending CAT claim, you need to understand how this decision will affect your case.

2. What the BIA Held

The BIA reversed the Immigration Judge on two independent grounds.

First, the respondent did not establish a clear probability of harm rising to the level of torture. The Board emphasized several key facts: the respondent lived in Mexico for roughly 13 years without suffering torture despite receiving threats; his past harm did not constitute past torture, as the Immigration Judge properly determined; he was able to relocate multiple times within Mexico to avoid harm; he remained unharmed for seven months after the kidnapping while waiting for his CBP One appointment; and his speculation about the identity of his persecutors was not supported by particularized evidence.

Second, even assuming an individualized risk of harm rising to the level of torture, the respondent did not establish the requisite state action. CAT protection requires proof that the feared torture would be inflicted by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. The Immigration Judge found only that the respondent assumed his kidnappers were police officers and noted general evidence of collusion between some Mexican authorities and criminal organizations. The BIA concluded that speculation and generalized country conditions evidence were insufficient to meet this burden.

Important: The BIA drew a sharp distinction between generalized country conditions evidence — cartel violence, corruption — and particularized evidence connecting that violence to a specific respondent. If your CAT claim relies primarily on country conditions reports, this decision is a warning.

3. The Two-Part CAT Standard and Why Both Parts Matter

Under the Convention Against Torture, a respondent must prove two things to obtain deferral of removal.

1. Clear probability of torture. The respondent must show it is more likely than not that he or she will be subjected to severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, that is intentionally inflicted for a proscribed purpose. This is a high bar. The BIA made clear that threats, intimidation, shootings at a home, and even a kidnapping with mistreatment may not be enough — especially when the respondent lived for over a decade without physical harm, was able to relocate, and only speculates about who is behind the threats.

2. State action (government acquiescence). Even if the harm itself qualifies as torture, it must be inflicted by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official. Acquiescence means the official had awareness of the torture, or was willfully blind to it, and breached a legal responsibility to prevent it. In J-E-L-, the BIA found that the respondent's assumption that his kidnappers were police officers, combined with general reports of corruption, did not meet this standard.

Attorney's Note: Many CAT claims fail on the second element, not the first. Even if you can demonstrate a genuine risk of torture, you must also present specific, particularized evidence linking the harm to government action or acquiescence. General country conditions alone will not be enough after J-E-L-.

4. What This Means for Pending CAT Claims

This decision has immediate practical consequences for anyone with a pending application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.

Country conditions evidence, while still relevant, is no longer sufficient on its own. You must present particularized evidence showing that you specifically are more likely than not to be tortured. Reports about general cartel violence or corruption in Mexico will not carry a claim across the finish line.

The ability to relocate within the proposed country of removal weighs heavily against a CAT claim. The BIA noted that the respondent relocated multiple times within Mexico and was able to live without problems in his final location. If you can demonstrate that relocation is not feasible, that evidence needs to be front and center.

The passage of time matters. The respondent's cooperation with U.S. law enforcement ended in 2009. The BIA considered the 13-year gap significant. If your feared harm is based on events that occurred years ago, you need current, updated evidence showing why the threat remains active.

Speculation about who is targeting you is not enough. If you cannot identify your persecutors or link them directly to the harm you suffered, the BIA will view your claim skeptically. Wherever possible, present direct or circumstantial evidence identifying the source of threats.

The state action element requires specific evidence, not assumptions. A claim that police officers "must have been involved" because corruption exists in the country is exactly the type of argument the BIA rejected in this case.

Important: If your CAT claim relies on general country conditions, speculation about your persecutors, or the assumption that government officials must be complicit because of widespread corruption, you need to reassess your evidentiary strategy immediately.

5. The Broader Pattern in Recent BIA Decisions

Matter of J-E-L- does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a series of 2025 and 2026 BIA decisions that have progressively tightened the standards for CAT protection.

• Matter of J-C-A-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 331 (BIA 2025) held that cooperation with U.S. law enforcement, country conditions evidence, and other factors did not establish a clear probability of torture by a cartel.

• Matter of A-A-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 2025) concluded that the factual findings did not support a determination that a public official would likely acquiesce to torture.

• Matter of O-A-R-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 30 (BIA 2025) further defined the contours of "acquiescence" under the CAT.

• Matter of A-A-F-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2025) concluded that the applicant did not show a clear probability of suffering harm amounting to torture.

Together, these decisions signal a clear direction: the BIA is demanding increasingly specific, individualized evidence for both the torture and state action elements of CAT claims. Practitioners should expect Immigration Judges to follow suit.

6. What You Should Do Now

Review your evidence immediately. Assess whether your claim relies on generalized country conditions or whether you have particularized evidence of individualized risk. If there are gaps, work with your attorney to fill them.

Strengthen the state action element. This is where most claims fall apart. Gather evidence — whether through expert testimony, country conditions reports tied to your specific region, news articles, or other documentation — that demonstrates a specific link between government officials and the harm you fear.

Address the relocation question head-on. If the government can argue that you could relocate within your country to avoid harm, your claim is vulnerable. Present evidence explaining why internal relocation is not a viable option for you specifically.

Get current evidence. If the events giving rise to your fear occurred years ago, you need recent evidence that the threat is ongoing. Dated evidence weakens your claim significantly under the BIA's analysis in J-E-L-.

Do not rely on assumptions. Identify your persecutors to the greatest extent possible. Present specific facts — not speculation — about why you believe a public official would consent to or acquiesce in your torture.

Attorney's Note: CAT claims require a comprehensive evidentiary package: expert testimony, specific country conditions evidence tied to your region and circumstances, documentation of past harm, evidence of ongoing threats, and a clear explanation of why the government in the proposed country of removal will not protect you. General assertions will not survive the standard the BIA has established in this line of cases.

The Bottom Line

Matter of J-E-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2026), makes clear that CAT claims based on generalized fears and assumptions about government complicity will not succeed. The respondent in this case endured 13 years of threats, shootings at his home, and a kidnapping after cooperating with U.S. law enforcement. The BIA still found it was not enough.

If you are seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture, the evidence must be specific, particularized, and current. You must connect the dots between the harm you fear and the government officials who would tolerate it.

The standard has changed. Preparation is your strongest asset.

If you have a pending CAT claim or believe you may need to file one, contact Ray Arvand directly. ArvandLaw represents clients in removal defense proceedings nationwide.

[Schedule a Consultation] ← link this button to the immigration consultation booking page

M. Ray Arvand, Esq. is an immigration attorney at The Law Office of M. Ray Arvand, P.C., with offices in New York and serving clients throughout Connecticut and nationwide. He practices exclusively in federal immigration law.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every immigration case is unique, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved. If you are in removal proceedings or have a pending application for protection under the Convention Against Torture, please consult with a qualified immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation.