CAT protection in immigration court
Convention Against Torture Lawyer — Protection When Return Means Torture
The Convention Against Torture (CAT) protects a person from being sent to a country where it is more likely than not that they would be tortured, with the involvement or acquiescence of officials there. It has no one-year deadline, it does not require a link to race, religion or politics, and in its deferral form it is available even to people whom a criminal record bars from asylum and from withholding of removal. Carlos Maury, a former U.S. Immigration Judge who heard cases at the Van Nuys Immigration Court, and before that served as government immigration counsel, represents people asking for CAT protection in immigration court, in English and Spanish.
Carlos Maury is no longer on the bench and cannot influence any sitting judge or pending case.
Why a former immigration judge
CAT claims are decided by immigration judges, almost always in removal proceedings, and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorney usually opposes them. The standard of proof is high, the definition of torture is narrow, and the judge must make findings on credibility, future risk and the role of officials, in a decision that holds up on appeal.
Carlos Maury served as a U.S. Immigration Judge at the Van Nuys Immigration Court, appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder, hearing cases from June 2015. As a judge, he decided roughly six hundred asylum cases on their merits in recent years (TRAC judge report (opens in new tab)), cases in which withholding of removal and CAT protection are decided on the same application. From 2002 to 2015 he worked with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Los Angeles, rising to deputy chief counsel, the side of the courtroom that reviews the government's file and decides what to challenge.
That experience shapes how we prepare a CAT case: we build the record around each element the judge must find, anticipate the government's questions on credibility, relocation and acquiescence, and protect the issues for appeal. None of this can promise a particular outcome; every case turns on its own facts and the law.
What we handle
We focus on CAT protection in immigration court and on the cases around it. Our guide to withholding of removal and CAT explains the law in more depth.
- CAT claims in removal proceedings. Preparing the Form I-589, the declaration, the evidence and the testimony for the individual hearing.
- People barred from asylum and withholding. Deferral of removal for people with convictions or other bars. See our criminal immigration lawyer page.
- Asylum and withholding in the same case. All three protections are requested together. See our asylum lawyer page.
- Reasonable fear and withholding-only cases. For people with a reinstated or administrative removal order who fear return.
- Detained cases. See when a loved one is detained by ICE and our immigration bond lawyer page.
- Appeals and petitions for review. Briefing errors in a CAT denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals. See our immigration appeals lawyer page.
- Motions to reopen. When country conditions worsen after a final order. See motions to reopen.
- The whole removal case. Hearings, appeals and old removal orders. See our deportation defense lawyer page and our removal defense guide.
What CAT protection is, and how it differs from asylum
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture forbids returning a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being tortured, and Congress made that the policy of the United States in section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA), printed as a note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (opens in new tab). The rules that apply in immigration court are in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (opens in new tab), § 1208.17 (opens in new tab) and § 1208.18 (opens in new tab).
The applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal (8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). If the judge finds that standard met, the person is entitled to protection; the judge has no discretion to deny it (§ 1208.16(c)(4)).
Three protections, three different tests
- Asylum requires a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, a particular social group or political opinion, usually a filing within one year, and discretion. It leads to a green card.
- Withholding of removal requires the same protected ground at the higher more-likely-than-not standard, with no deadline.
- CAT protection requires no protected ground. A person targeted for money, revenge or any other reason can qualify, if the harm is torture and officials are involved.
Our asylum vs. withholding vs. CAT comparison sets them side by side; the asylum guide covers asylum.
What counts as torture
The definition in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) has several parts, and each must be proven:
- Severe pain or suffering, physical or mental. Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment; lesser forms of mistreatment do not qualify (§ 1208.18(a)(2)).
- Intentionally inflicted, for a purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, or for any reason based on discrimination.
- By or with the involvement of officials: inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
- Not a lawful sanction. Pain arising only from lawful sanctions, such as judicially imposed penalties, is not torture, unless the sanction defeats the object and purpose of the Convention (§ 1208.18(a)(3)).
Acquiescence: the hardest element
Claims involving cartels, gangs or other private groups can qualify only through acquiescence: the official must have been aware of the activity beforehand, through actual knowledge or willful blindness, and then breached a legal responsibility to intervene (§ 1208.18(a)(7)). The Board of Immigration Appeals has read this strictly. Fear of private violence plus a belief that the police will not help is not enough (Matter of M-S-I-, 29 I&N Dec. 61 (BIA 2025) (opens in new tab)), and where parts of the government are acting against gangs, even ineffectively, acquiescence was not shown (Matter of H-L-S-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2026) (opens in new tab)). A strong claim needs specific evidence that ties officials to the harm the person fears.
CAT withholding or CAT deferral
CAT protection is granted in one of two forms (8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4)). If none of the bars applies, the judge grants withholding of removal under CAT. The bars are the ones in section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: persecution of others, a conviction for a particularly serious crime, a serious nonpolitical crime committed abroad, and danger to the security of the United States (§ 1208.16(d)(2)). An aggravated felony with an aggregate sentence of at least five years is treated as a particularly serious crime.
If a bar applies, the judge must instead grant deferral of removal to that country (8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a) (opens in new tab)). Congress told the agencies to exclude barred people from CAT protection to the maximum extent consistent with the Convention, and deferral is what the Convention still requires: it is the one protection in immigration law with no bars.
What deferral does not do
Deferral is weaker than withholding. The judge must tell the person that it gives no lawful or permanent immigration status, does not necessarily mean release from ICE custody, lasts only until it is terminated, and can be reviewed (§ 1208.17(b)(1)). ICE keeps its authority to detain (§ 1208.17(c)). DHS can ask the court for a hearing to terminate deferral by presenting new evidence about the risk of torture, and at that hearing the person again carries the burden of proof (§ 1208.17(d)).
How a CAT claim is decided
CAT is requested on the same Form I-589 as asylum and withholding, and the judge decides all three together. In an ordinary affirmative asylum case, USCIS decides only asylum: an asylum officer does not decide withholding or CAT, except for certain people found to have a credible fear at the border whose cases are kept by USCIS for an asylum merits interview (8 C.F.R. § 208.16(a)).
Screening at the border and after an old order
- Credible fear. A person in expedited removal who expresses fear is interviewed by an asylum officer, and a credible fear of torture means a significant possibility of eligibility for CAT withholding or deferral (8 C.F.R. § 208.30 (opens in new tab)).
- Reasonable fear. A person whose prior removal order is reinstated, or who received an administrative removal order, is screened for a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture (8 C.F.R. § 208.31 (opens in new tab)). A positive finding leads to withholding-only proceedings, where the judge can grant withholding or CAT protection but not asylum. A negative finding can be reviewed by an immigration judge, if the person asks.
The evidence that matters
The judge must consider all evidence relevant to future torture, including past torture, whether the person could relocate to a part of the country where torture is not likely, gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, and other country conditions (8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)). In practice a CAT record is built from:
- A detailed declaration in the applicant's own words, consistent with the I-589 and with earlier statements at the border or in a fear interview.
- Evidence of past harm: medical records, photographs of scars, and psychological evaluations that document trauma.
- Country conditions: U.S. State Department human rights reports and other reliable sources on how officials, police and armed groups act, and where.
- Evidence on relocation: why moving elsewhere in the country would not make the person safe.
- Evidence on officials: threats from police, ignored complaints, ties between officials and the group the person fears.
Documents in another language need certified English translations. Past torture is strong evidence but is not required, and the record must show why the risk exists now.
What a grant gives, and what it does not
- Protection from removal to that country. A person granted CAT withholding or deferral may not be removed to the country for which it was granted while the grant lasts.
- A removal order still exists. The judge orders removal and then withholds or defers it. DHS may remove the person to a third country where torture is not likely (8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(f); § 1208.17(b)(2)); the procedure for those removals is in litigation, and our withholding guide follows it.
- No green card from CAT itself. CAT gives no status and no path to citizenship. A green card would have to come from another basis, if one exists.
- No protection for family members. Unlike asylum, there is no derivative status: a spouse or child needs their own claim.
- A work permit. A person granted withholding is authorized to work for the period of that status (8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(10) (opens in new tab)). That category does not name deferral; a person with deferral who is released on an order of supervision may be able to apply under § 274a.12(c)(18). See work permits.
Appeals and federal court review
Either side may appeal the judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals within 30 days (8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (opens in new tab)). See our guide to the Board of Immigration Appeals. After the Board, judicial review of a CAT claim comes only as part of a petition for review of the final removal order in a federal court of appeals (8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(e)). In Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (2020) (opens in new tab), the Supreme Court held that the court of appeals may review the factual findings behind a CAT denial, deferentially, even when the person is removable for a crime. The record built before the judge is what counts.
Mistakes that can hurt a CAT claim
- Asking only for asylum. If asylum fails on a deadline or a bar, CAT must already be in the application.
- Proving harm but not official involvement. Without consent or acquiescence, severe harm is not torture under the rule.
- Ignoring relocation. The judge will ask why the person could not live safely elsewhere.
- Inconsistent statements. Differences from the border interview or the I-589 can sink credibility.
- Assuming a conviction ends the case. Deferral has no criminal bars.
- Missing a hearing. A judge can order removal in absentia.
- Letting a notario handle it. A "notario" is not a lawyer and cannot represent you before USCIS or in immigration court.
Serving Los Angeles & Southern California
Our office is in Van Nuys, in the San Fernando Valley, and we regularly appear for people seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture in the immigration courts of Los Angeles and Southern California:
- Los Angeles immigration court
- West LA immigration court
- Van Nuys immigration court
- Santa Ana immigration court
- Adelanto immigration court (detained cases)
- San Diego immigration court
- Otay Mesa immigration court (detained cases)
- Imperial immigration court
See all Los Angeles-area immigration courts.
Our page on the Southern California immigration courts covers all eight court locations, including the border courts in San Diego, Otay Mesa and Imperial.
Immigration law is federal, so we represent clients across the country, before USCIS and the immigration courts. We appear in immigration courts in all 50 states, in person or by video where the court allows. Find your court among all 77 immigration courts. Meetings at the Van Nuys office are by appointment only.
Carlos Maury is licensed in Florida. Practice limited to federal immigration law; we represent clients in all 50 states.
About Carlos Maury
Carlos Maury served as a U.S. Immigration Judge at the Van Nuys Immigration Court, appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder, hearing cases from June 2015 (EOIR announcement (opens in new tab)). From 2002 to 2015 he worked with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles, rising to deputy chief counsel. Before that he was district counsel for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in Miami from 2000 to 2002, and an assistant public defender in Florida's Eleventh Judicial Circuit from 1993 to 2000.
He earned his J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law in 1992 and his B.A. from City College of the City University of New York in 1989. He is a member of The Florida Bar (No. 964239) and works with clients in English and Spanish. Read more about Carlos Maury.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between asylum and CAT protection?
Asylum requires a fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, a particular social group or political opinion, usually must be filed within one year, and leads to a green card. CAT protection requires proof that torture with official involvement is more likely than not, needs no protected ground and has no deadline, but gives no green card and does not cover family members.
Can I get CAT protection if I have a criminal record?
Possibly. A particularly serious crime or another bar rules out asylum and withholding of removal under CAT, but deferral of removal under CAT has no criminal bars. If the judge finds that torture is more likely than not, deferral must be granted, although it is weaker and ICE may continue detention.
Is there a deadline to apply for CAT protection?
No. The one-year deadline applies only to asylum. CAT protection can be requested at any point in removal proceedings, and in some cases through a motion to reopen when conditions in the country have changed, but waiting can weaken the case and missed court deadlines still count.
Does the harm have to come from the government?
Not directly, but officials must be involved. Torture must be inflicted by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. Harm by a gang or cartel can qualify only if officials knew or were willfully blind and failed to intervene.
Does CAT protection lead to a green card?
No. CAT withholding and deferral are not immigration statuses, and there is no green card or citizenship based on them. A removal order remains in place; the government is only barred from carrying it out to the country where torture is likely. A green card would need another basis, if one is available.
Can I work if I am granted CAT protection?
A person granted withholding of removal under CAT is authorized to work while the grant lasts and applies for the card on Form I-765. The work permit rules do not name deferral, so a person granted only deferral should get advice; a person released on an order of supervision may be able to apply in a separate category.
Can the government end my CAT deferral?
Yes. DHS can ask the immigration court for a hearing to terminate deferral by presenting new evidence about the risk of torture, and you must again prove that torture is more likely than not. Deferral can also end at your own request.
Can Carlos Maury influence the judge deciding my case?
No. Carlos Maury is no longer on the bench and cannot influence any sitting judge or pending case. What he offers is preparation and experience, not access.
Do you handle CAT cases in immigration court in Los Angeles and Southern California?
Yes. We represent people seeking CAT protection in the immigration courts in Los Angeles, Van Nuys, West LA and Santa Ana, at Adelanto for detained cases, and in San Diego, Otay Mesa and Imperial. Our office is in Van Nuys, and meetings there are by appointment only.
Do you take cases outside California?
Yes. Immigration law is federal, so we represent clients before USCIS and immigration courts in all 50 states. Carlos Maury is licensed in Florida, and the practice is limited to federal immigration law.
Talk with a former immigration judge about your CAT case
Whether you fear torture if you are returned, have been found ineligible for asylum, are detained, or have a reasonable fear interview or an individual hearing coming up, call to discuss your case before the deadlines pass. Hablamos español.