8 C.F.R. § 208.16

Withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Consideration of application for withholding of removal. An asylum officer shall not determine whether an alien is eligible for withholding of the exclusion, deportation, or removal of the alien to a country where the alien's life or freedom would be threatened, except in the case of an alien who is determined to be an applicant for admission under section 235(b)(1) of the Act, who is found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, whose case is subsequently retained by or referred to USCIS pursuant to the jurisdiction provided at § 208.2(a)(1)(ii) to consider the application for asylum, and whose application for asylum is not granted; or in the case of the spouse or child of such an alien who is included in the alien's asylum application and who files a separate application for asylum with USCIS that is not granted. In such cases, the asylum officer will determine, based on the record before USCIS, whether the applicant is eligible for statutory withholding of removal under paragraph (b) of this section or withholding or deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture under paragraph (c) of this section. Even if the asylum officer determines that the applicant has established eligibility for withholding of removal under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, the asylum officer shall proceed with referring the application to the immigration judge for a hearing pursuant to § 208.14(c)(1). In exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings, an immigration judge may adjudicate both an asylum claim and a request for withholding of removal whether or not asylum is granted.

(b) Eligibility for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act; burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act to establish that his or her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration. The evidence shall be evaluated as follows:

(1) Past threat to life or freedom. (i) If the applicant is determined to have suffered past persecution in the proposed country of removal on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, it shall be presumed that the applicant's life or freedom would be threatened in the future in the country of removal on the basis of the original claim. This presumption may be rebutted if an asylum officer or immigration judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence:

(A) There has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of any of the five grounds mentioned in this paragraph upon the applicant's removal to that country; or

(B) The applicant could avoid a future threat to his or her life or freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed country of removal and, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.

(ii) In cases in which the applicant has established past persecution, the Service shall bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) or (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

(iii) If the applicant's fear of future threat to life or freedom is unrelated to the past persecution, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that it is more likely than not that he or she would suffer such harm.

(2) Future threat to life or freedom. An applicant who has not suffered past persecution may demonstrate that his or her life or freedom would be threatened in the future in a country if he or she can establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion upon removal to that country. Such an applicant cannot demonstrate that his or her life or freedom would be threatened if the asylum officer or immigration judge finds that the applicant could avoid a future threat to his or her life or freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed country of removal and, under all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so. In evaluating whether it is more likely than not that the applicant's life or freedom would be threatened in a particular country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, the asylum officer or immigration judge shall not require the applicant to provide evidence that he or she would be singled out individually for such persecution if:

(i) The applicant establishes that in that country there is a pattern or practice of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and

(ii) The applicant establishes his or her own inclusion in and identification with such group of persons such that it is more likely than not that his or her life or freedom would be threatened upon return to that country.

(3) Reasonableness of internal relocation. For purposes of determinations under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, adjudicators should consider the totality of the relevant circumstances regarding an applicant's prospects for relocation, including the size of the country of nationality or last habitual residence, the geographic locus of the alleged persecution, the size, reach, or numerosity of the alleged persecutor, and the applicant's demonstrated ability to relocate to the United States in order to apply for withholding of removal.

(i) In cases in which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored.

(ii) In cases in which the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored, it shall be presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable, unless DHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, under the totality of the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.

(iii) Regardless of whether an applicant has established persecution in the past, in cases in which the persecutor is not the government or a government-sponsored actor, or otherwise is a private actor, there shall be a presumption that internal relocation would be reasonable unless the applicant establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would be unreasonable to relocate.

(iv) For purposes of determinations under paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, persecutors who are private actors, including but not limited to persecutors who are gang members, public officials who are not acting under color of law, or family members who are not themselves government officials or neighbors who are not themselves government officials, shall not be considered to be persecutors who are the government or government-sponsored absent evidence that the government sponsored the persecution.

(c) Eligibility for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. (1) For purposes of regulations under Title II of the Act, “Convention Against Torture” shall refer to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, subject to any reservations, understandings, declarations, and provisos contained in the United States Senate resolution of ratification of the Convention, as implemented by section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-821). The definition of torture contained in § 208.18(a) of this part shall govern all decisions made under regulations under Title II of the Act about the applicability of Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.

(2) The burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding of removal under this paragraph to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.

(3) In assessing whether it is more likely than not that an applicant would be tortured in the proposed country of removal, all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered, including, but not limited to:

(i) Evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant;

(ii) Evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured;

(iii) Evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights within the country of removal, where applicable; and

(iv) Other relevant information regarding conditions in the country of removal.

(4) In considering an application for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, the adjudicator shall first determine whether the alien is more likely than not to be tortured in the country of removal. If the adjudicator determines that the alien is more likely than not to be tortured in the country of removal, the alien is eligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture, and the adjudicator shall determine whether protection under the Convention Against Torture should be granted either in the form of withholding of removal or in the form of deferral of removal. The adjudicator shall state that an alien eligible for such protection is eligible for withholding of removal unless the alien is subject to mandatory denial of withholding of removal under paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section. If an alien eligible for such protection is subject to mandatory denial of withholding of removal under paragraph (d)(2) or (3) of this section, the adjudicator shall state that the alien is eligible for deferral of removal under § 208.17(a). For cases under the jurisdiction of USCIS pursuant to § 208.2(a)(1)(ii), the asylum officer may make such a determination based on the application and the record before USCIS; however, the asylum officer shall not issue an order granting either withholding of removal or deferral of removal because that is referred to the immigration judge pursuant to § 208.14(c)(1) and 8 CFR 1240.17.

(d) Approval or denial of application—(1) General. Subject to paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section, an application for withholding of deportation or removal to a country of proposed removal shall be granted if the applicant's eligibility for withholding is established pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.

(2) Mandatory denials—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, an application for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture shall be denied if the applicant falls within section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act or, for applications for withholding of deportation adjudicated in proceedings commenced prior to April 1, 1997, within section 243(h)(2) of the Act as it appeared prior to that date. For purposes of section 241(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act, or section 243(h)(2)(B) of the Act as it appeared prior to April 1, 1997, an alien who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime shall be considered to constitute a danger to the community. If the evidence indicates the applicability of one or more of the grounds for denial of withholding enumerated in the Act, the applicant shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such grounds do not apply.

(ii) Public health emergencies. If a communicable disease has triggered an ongoing declaration of a public health emergency under Federal law, such as under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, or section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3, then an alien is ineligible for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act and under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture on the basis of there being reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act if the alien:

(A) Exhibits symptoms indicating that he or she is afflicted with the disease, per guidance issued by the Secretary or the Attorney General, as appropriate; or

(B) Has come into contact with the disease within the number of days equivalent to the longest known incubation and contagion period for the disease, per guidance issued by the Secretary or the Attorney General, as appropriate.

(iii) Danger to the public health caused by an epidemic outside of the United States. If, regarding a communicable disease of public health significance as defined at 42 CFR 34.2(b), the Secretary and the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, have jointly:

(A) Determined that the physical presence in the United States of aliens who are coming from a country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or have embarked at a place or places, where such disease is prevalent or epidemic (or had come from that country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or had embarked at that place or places, during a period in which the disease was prevalent or epidemic there) would cause a danger to the public health in the United States; and

(B) Designated the foreign country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or place or places, and the period of time or circumstances under which they jointly deem it necessary for the public health that aliens or classes of aliens described in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section who are still within the number of days equivalent to the longest known incubation and contagion period for the disease be regarded as a danger to the security of the United States under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act, including any relevant exceptions as appropriate, then—

(C) An alien or class of aliens are ineligible for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act and under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture on the basis of there being reasonable grounds for regarding the alien or class of aliens as a danger to the security of the United States under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act if the alien or class of aliens are described in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and are regarded as a danger to the security of the United States as provided for in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.

(iv) The grounds for mandatory denial described in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section shall not apply to an alien who is applying for asylum or withholding of removal in the United States upon return from Canada to the United States and pursuant to the Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries.

(3) Exception to the prohibition on withholding of deportation in certain cases. Section 243(h)(3) of the Act, as added by section 413 of Pub. L. 104-132 (110 Stat. 1214), shall apply only to applications adjudicated in proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, and in which final action had not been taken before April 24, 1996. The discretion permitted by that section to override section 243(h)(2) of the Act shall be exercised only in the case of an applicant convicted of an aggravated felony (or felonies) where he or she was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of less than 5 years and the immigration judge determines on an individual basis that the crime (or crimes) of which the applicant was convicted does not constitute a particularly serious crime. Nevertheless, it shall be presumed that an alien convicted of an aggravated felony has been convicted of a particularly serious crime. Except in the cases specified in this paragraph, the grounds for denial of withholding of deportation in section 243(h)(2) of the Act as it appeared prior to April 1, 1997, shall be deemed to comply with the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, T.I.A.S. No. 6577.

(e) [Reserved]

(f) Removal to third country. Nothing in this section or § 208.17 shall prevent the Service from removing an alien to a third country other than the country to which removal has been withheld or deferred.

[62 FR 10337, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 8488, Feb. 19, 1999; 65 FR 76135, Dec. 6, 2000; 85 FR 67259, Oct. 21, 2020; 85 FR 80388, Dec. 11, 2020; 85 FR 84193, Dec. 23, 2020; 87 FR 18218, Mar. 29, 2022; 90 FR 61048, Dec. 30, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,820 cases (427 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Raul Barajas-Romero v. Loretta E. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017).
Raul Barajas-Romero v. Loretta E. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “33 The implementing regulations are at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16 -.18. For CAT relief, the alien must prove that it is “more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country.”
J-e, 23 I. & N. Dec. 291 (BIA 2002). · cites it 12× “(4) According to 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(3) (2001), in adjudicating a claim for protection under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture must be considered, including, but not limited to: (1) evidence of past torture…”
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (b)(2). Second, •withholding or deferral of removal is available under the Convention Against Torture (commonly called “CAT relief’).”
Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “3d at 133 -34 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(2)). Evidence of past persecution creates “a rebuttable presumption .”
Nadarjh Ramsameachire v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney Gen., 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “§§ 1158 and 1231, respectively, and for withholding of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and its implementing regulations, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 . At his removal hearing, Ramsameachire testified as to his purported past persecution on the basis of his…”
Takky Zubeda v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 333 F.3d 463 (3rd Cir. 2003). · cites it 6× “2002) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(2)). Unlike establishing a “reasonable fear of persecution” for asylum, “[t]he standard for relief [under the Convention on Torture] has no subjective component, but instead requires the alien to establish, by objective evidence, that…”
Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2003). · cites it 7× “These regulations require the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) to grant protection under CAT whenever it determines that an “alien is more likely than not to be tortured in the country of removal,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(4), but the burden of proof is on the…”
Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 663 F.3d 582 (3rd Cir. 2011). · cites it 8× “2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (b)(1). Where an applicant is unable to demonstrate that s/he has been the victim of past persecution, the applicant nonetheless becomes eligible for asylum upon demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to his/her native…”
Navaratwam Kamalthas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16 (c)(2) and (3) (2000) (emphases added).”
Irina Efimovna Antipova v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 392 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 10× “8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (b). However, the regulations also provide that if the applicant is determined to have suffered past persecution in the proposed country of removal, a rebuttable presumption arises that her “life or freedom” would again be threatened upon removal to the…”
Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (b)(l)(D. 4 . 382 F.3d 521 .”
Tengiz Sevoian v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 290 F.3d 166 (3rd Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “See also 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(4) (stating that if the INS reaches the merits of a claim under the Convention and decides the alien meets the requirements of the relevant statutes and regulations, the alien is “entitled” to withholding or deferral of removal).”
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(B)(1) — 1 case
Adegbuji v. Middlesex Cnty., 169 F. App'x 677 (3rd Cir. 2006).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) — 12 cases
Luz Marina Silva v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 448 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2006).
Xiaodong Li v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2005).
Monica Johana Zarate v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 307 F. App'x 289 (11th Cir. 2009).
Gabriel Benito-Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions, 703 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2017).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1) — 4 cases
Niang v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2007).
Sulaiman v. Attorney Gen., 212 F. Supp. 2d 413 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
Miryam Fajardo v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 140 F. App'x 854 (11th Cir. 2005).
Niang v. Mukasey (2d Cir. 2008).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i) — 2 cases
Wilson Pena v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 134 F. App'x 384 (11th Cir. 2005).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2) — 9 cases
Mewengkang v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 737 (1st Cir. 2007).
Mateo v. Gonzales, 217 F. App'x 476 (6th Cir. 2007).
Mburu v. Gonzales, 214 F. App'x 505 (6th Cir. 2007).
Dhine v. Dist. Dir., 818 F. Supp. 671 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Wilson Pena v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 134 F. App'x 384 (11th Cir. 2005).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)(i) — 3 cases
Fabian Salgado v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 236 F. App'x 482 (11th Cir. 2007).
Kiki Turino Hanoch Runtu v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 228 F. App'x 939 (11th Cir. 2007).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(i) — 1 case
Farid Alberto Calderon Salinas v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 140 F. App'x 868 (11th Cir. 2005).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(iii) — 2 cases
Suharyadi v. Attorney Gen., 271 F. App'x 209 (3rd Cir. 2008).
Sylviana v. Attorney Gen., 263 F. App'x 255 (3rd Cir. 2008).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c) — 20 cases
Bi Qing Zheng v. Loretta Lynch, 819 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2016).
Liu Yanni v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 707 F. App'x 697 (11th Cir. 2017).
Asad Hussain v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 229 F. App'x 861 (11th Cir. 2007).
Badio v. United States, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (D. Minnesota 2001).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) — 31 cases
Shaghil v. Holder, 638 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2011).
Singh v. Gonzales, 133 F. App'x 399 (9th Cir. 2005).
Emdadulhoque Bhuiyan v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 128 F. App'x 755 (11th Cir. 2005).
Javier Lopez-Gonzalez v. Jefferson Sessions, 706 F. App'x 435 (9th Cir. 2017).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)(2000) — 1 case
Samad Radamis Fahim v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2002).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3) — 5 cases
Natalio Perez-Aguilon v. Loretta Lynch, 674 F. App'x 457 (6th Cir. 2016).
Zhilin Han v. Eric Holder, Jr., 545 F. App'x 631 (9th Cir. 2013).
Mostafa v. Ashcroft (6th Cir. 2005).
Diallo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 74 F. App'x 497 (6th Cir. 2003).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(4)(2001) — 1 case
Bitraj v. Atty Gen USA, 111 F. App'x 122 (3rd Cir. 2004).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(d)(1) — 2 cases
Osuman v. Ashcroft, 37 F. App'x 585 (3rd Cir. 2002).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(d)(2) — 3 cases
Marogi v. Jenifer, 126 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Pavitar Gill v. Eric Holder, Jr., 573 F. App'x 625 (9th Cir. 2014).
Azuakoemu v. Attorney Gen., 195 F. App'x 47 (3rd Cir. 2006).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(f) — 1 case
Taslimi v. Keisler, 249 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.