Valle v. Garland

Holding that the Board’s decision to deny Valle’s CAT relief application was supported by substantial evidence. The Court concluded that robberies do not equate to torture under CAT, Valle could possibly relocate within Honduras, and his family has resided safely in Honduras for an extended period of time. Ultimately, Valle failed to establish that all reasonable adjudicators would conclude it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Honduras and that government would acquiesce to said torture. In addition, while the IJ misstated the applicable CAT standard of review for governmental acquiescence, she nonetheless applied the correct standard—willful blindness—substantively throughout her opinion. 

Date of Decision
Unpublished