Wilerms Oxygene v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: A025-454-289. [999758750]. [14-2380, 15-1099]

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 23

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2380

WILERMS OXYGENE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

No. 15-1099

WILERMS OXYGENE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Argued:

December 8, 2015

Decided:

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

February 22, 2016

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 23

Petitions for review denied in part and dismissed in part by
published opinion. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge
King and Judge Keenan joined.

ARGUED: Tamara L. Jezic, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Woodbridge,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Jeffery R. Leist, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
ON
BRIEF: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Division, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Gladys M. Steffens Guzman, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

2

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 23

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:
Wilerms Oxygene petitions for review of orders denying his
application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against
Torture

(“CAT”)

proceedings.

and

For

subsequent

the

reasons

motion
that

to

reopen

follow,

the

his

removal

petition

for

review is denied in part and dismissed in part.

I.
In 1994, Oxygene, accompanied by his mother and siblings,
fled political violence in his native country of Haiti.
violence
family

included

home

while

occasions
Oxygene

when

and

death

others

squads

were

fired

inside

This

on

the

the

house.

Oxygene entered the United States as a refugee; in 1996 the
United States granted him lawful permanent resident status.
Five years later, a Virginia court convicted Oxygene of
several

state

crimes,

including

burglary,

grand

larceny,

robbery, and use of a firearm to commit a felony.

In 2011, the

Department

Government”)

commenced
that

he

of

removal
was

§ 1227(a)(2)
felonies

Homeland

and

Security

proceedings

removable
(2012)
firearm

under

due

to

(“DHS”

against
various
his

offenses,

removal under the CAT.

3

or

“the

him.

subsections

convictions

but

Oxygene

applied

of

for
for

conceded
8

U.S.C.

aggravated
deferral

of

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 4 of 23

At his removal hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”),
Oxygene testified to his family’s past persecution in Haiti and
his fear that, if removed, he would face indefinite detention in
Haitian prisons.

Oxygene also expressed fear that, if detained

in Haiti, he would not receive the medical care necessary to
prevent his latent tuberculosis from becoming active.
and

his

sister

testified

that

they

had

no

remaining

Oxygene
family

members in Haiti who could provide support in the form of food,
medicine, or payment for release from detention.
Oxygene submitted documentary evidence to substantiate his
allegations

of

poor

prison

conditions

in

Haiti.

The

administrative record contains several State Department country
reports

for

Haiti,

a

report

from

various

non-governmental

organizations submitted to the United Nations (“the 2011 NGO
report”), and news articles and press releases concerning human
rights abuses in the country.

Together, these sources paint a

bleak picture of what criminal deportees like Oxygene can expect
upon removal to Haiti.
According to the State Department country reports, as early
as 2000, Haiti began detaining criminal deportees “who [have]
already

served

full

periods of time.”
center

sentences

overseas

.

.

.

for

indefinite

The 2013 country report describes “detention

overcrowding”

as

“severe,”

explaining

that

“[i]n

some

prisons detainees slept in shifts due to lack of space” and that
4

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 5 of 23

“[s]ome prisons had no beds for detainees, and some cells had no
access to sunlight.”
access

to

treated

Prisoners and detainees generally had no

drinking

water,

and

approximately

seventy

percent “suffered from a lack of basic hygiene, malnutrition,
poor

quality

result,

health
report

the

care,

and

concludes

water-borne
that

illness.”

malaria,

As

a

drug-resistant

tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases present a “serious
problem.”
laws

The 2013 country report also states that, despite

prohibiting

such

practices,

on

several

occasions

police

“allegedly beat or otherwise abused detainees and suspects,” and
“corrections

officers

use[d]

physical

punishment

and

psychological abuse to mistreat prisoners.”
The record is unclear as to whether Haiti’s blanket policy
of detaining criminal deportees remains in force.

While the

2013 State Department report makes no mention of the policy, the
2011 NGO report indicates that Haitian officials have continued
to

detain

a

majority

A

2013

arrival.

of

press

criminal
release

deportees
by

the

immediately

human

rights

upon
group

Alternative Chance also notes skepticism as to recent claims by
the

Haitian

government

that

it

had

abandoned

the

indefinite

detention program.
The IJ carefully considered this documentary evidence and
the

testimony

of

Oxygene

and

Oxygene’s claim for CAT relief.
5

his

sister

when

evaluating

The IJ found “no doubt that

Appeal: 14-2380

prison

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

conditions

in

Haiti

Pg: 6 of 23

remain

deplorable,

and

that

as

a

criminal deportee [Oxygene] may possibly be held in custody upon
his return to Haiti for some unknown period of time in those
poor conditions.”
higher

risk

He also noted that Oxygene “could be at a

than

normal

of

disease,

given

his

diagnosis

of

latent tuberculosis.”

Finally, the IJ recognized that “[t]he

record

indicates

evidence

even

that

there

have

been

some

incidents of mistreatment of Haitian prisoners so severe as to
constitute torture.”
Despite these findings, the IJ denied Oxygene’s application
for

deferral

of

removal

under

the

CAT.

The

IJ

found

that

Oxygene had not demonstrated that it was more likely than not he
would suffer torture upon removal to Haiti.

The IJ concluded

that application of BIA precedent, In re J-E-, 23 I. & N. Dec.
291 (BIA 2002) (en banc), foreclosed Oxygene’s argument that
Haiti’s

detention

policy

and

prison

conditions

the

CAT.

This

constitute

torture

under

explained,

because

Oxygene

[Haitian]

authorities

offered

intentionally

deportees in order to inflict torture.”

“no
and

was

necessarily
so,

evidence

the

that

deliberately

IJ
the

detain

Rather, the record only

contained evidence of “isolated incidents” of mistreatment by
correctional

officers

that

would

qualify

as

torture.

Thus,

Oxygene failed to meet the more-likely-than-not burden of proof
required for relief under the CAT.
6

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 7 of 23

Oxygene appealed the IJ’s removal order to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and at the same time moved the BIA
to remand the case for the IJ to consider whether Oxygene’s
recent

diagnoses

of

post-traumatic

depression impacted his CAT claim.
order

and

denied

the

remand

this

decision,

disorder

and

The BIA affirmed the removal

motion

concerning the recent diagnoses.
reconsider

stress

for

lack

of

evidence

Oxygene then moved the BIA to

attaching

relevant

medical

evidence

and an article on the stigma associated with mental illness in
Haiti.

The BIA construed this filing as a timely motion to

reopen the removal proceedings and denied it, concluding that
Oxygene failed to show that the new evidence would change the
result of the case.
Oxygene filed two appeals to this court -- one challenges
the BIA’s denial of his application for CAT relief, and the
other challenges its denial of his motion to reopen the removal
proceedings.

We have consolidated the two cases.

II.
Oxygene concedes that a Virginia court convicted him of
committing an aggravated felony.

For this reason, Congress has

limited our jurisdiction over his petition for review of the
order

denying

constitutional

him

CAT

claims.

relief
See

8
7

to

questions

U.S.C.

§

of

law

and

1252(a)(2)(C),

(D)

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 8 of 23

(2012); Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2008).
Congress has similarly limited our review of the order denying
his

motion

to

reopen

his

removal

proceedings.

See

§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d 71, 75 (1st
Cir. 2009).
we

must

whether

Given this limitation, as a “threshold question,”

analyze
it

each

presents

a

argument
legal

Oxygene

or

raises only a factual dispute.

raises

constitutional

to

determine

question,

or

Saintha, 516 F.3d at 248-252.

In challenging the order denying his application for CAT
relief, Oxygene offers two arguments.

First, he maintains that

In re J-E-, on which the IJ and BIA relied, incorrectly states
the legal test for the intent necessary to establish torture
under the CAT.
jurisdiction
See 8

U.S.C.

This is a question of law over which we retain

despite
§

Oxygene’s

aggravated

1252(a)(2)(D);

1002, 1009 (8th Cir. 2010).

Cherichel

felony
v.

conviction.

Holder,

591

F.3d

Oxygene argues in the alternative

that, even if In re J-E- correctly states the intent requirement
for CAT claims, the IJ and BIA erred in their application of
that requirement to his case.

At bottom, Oxygene contends that

substantial evidence does not support the IJ and BIA decisions
to deny him CAT relief.

We ordinarily can “review[] decisions

to deny CAT relief for substantial evidence.”

Suarez-Valenzuela

v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 245 (4th Cir. 2013).

But when an

applicant for CAT relief has committed an aggravated felony,
8

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 9 of 23

§ 1252(a)(2)(C) eliminates appellate review for sufficiency of
evidence.

See Saintha, 516 F.3d at 249-50.

Consequently, we

lack jurisdiction to consider his alternative argument. 1
In his challenge to the order denying his motion to reopen
his application for CAT relief, Oxygene maintains that, given
his

recent

mental

health

diagnoses,

discretion in denying relief.

the

BIA

abused

its

According to Oxygene, Haitian

officials will likely single him out for torture because of the
stigma associated with mental health conditions in Haiti.

But

the BIA disagreed, finding that that the record evidence, along
with his newly proffered evidence, did not demonstrate that it
was

more

removal.

likely
This

than

not

Oxygene

constitutes

a

would

suffer

torture

quintessentially

determination over which we lack jurisdiction.

upon

factual

See Hernandez-

Nolasco v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 95, 99 (4th Cir. 2015).

1

Oxygene also raises a related claim of legal error in this
alternative argument.
According to Oxygene, the IJ and BIA
committed
legal
error
by
“ignor[ing]
unrebutted,
legally
significant
evidence”
and
failing
to
offer
a
“reasoned
explanation” for their rulings. Pet. Br. at 25. This argument
fails. In fact, the IJ carefully considered Oxygene’s testimony
and documentary evidence, including facts that potentially
distinguished his case from In re J-E-, before concluding that
In re J-E- compelled him to deny the application. And the BIA’s
opinion affirming the IJ’s decision adequately explains why the
IJ’s decision was correct.
9

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Accordingly,

we

turn

Pg: 10 of 23

now

to

consider

a

single

issue:

whether In re J-E- states the correct legal standard for intent
in CAT claims.

III.
The

Government

maintains

that

In

re

J-E-

correctly

articulates the intent element in the CAT definition of torture.
According to the Government, to establish torture meriting CAT
relief,

Oxygene

must

demonstrate

that

Haitian

officials

specifically intend not only the act of detention, but also the
severe pain and suffering that is the near-inevitable result of
prolonged detention in Haitian prisons.

The Government argues

that mere knowledge does not suffice to prove intent.

Rather,

the alleged torturers must actually desire the consequences of
their actions.

Oxygene maintains that In re J-E- does not state

the correct legal standard.

He contends that the intent to

detain, coupled with knowledge to a near certainty that severe
pain and suffering will result, qualifies as specific intent to
torture under the CAT.
To resolve this question, we must examine the CAT and its
implementing regulations to determine its definition of torture
and the resulting treaty obligations of the United States.

The

United Nations General Assembly adopted the CAT on December 10,
1984.

See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
10

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 11 of 23

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty
Doc. No. 100-20 (1988).
treaty,

the

United

As a signatory to this multinational

States

agreed

not

to

“expel,

return

(refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there
are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger
of being subjected to torture.”

Id. art. 3.1.

The CAT defines

torture, in relevant part, as “any act by which severe pain or
suffering,

whether

physical

inflicted on a person.”
Upon

signing

the

or

mental,

is

intentionally

Id. art. 1.1 (emphasis added).
CAT,

the

President

proposed,

and

the

Senate adopted, a number of reservations, understandings, and
declarations.

Relevant here is the understanding that “in order

to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to
inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”

S. Exec.

Rep. 101-30, at 9, 30, 36 (1990) (emphasis added).

Such an

express understanding reflects the intent of the United States
to influence how executive and judicial bodies later interpret
the treaty on both the international and domestic level.

See

Stefan A. Riesenfeld & Frederick M. Abbot, The Scope of U.S.
Senate Control over the Conclusion and Operation of Treaties, 67
Chi.-Kent

L.

Rev.

571,

604

(1991).

Thus,

by

the

time

of

ratification, the intent requirement in the CAT had acquired a
“specific intent” gloss in the United States.

11

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Congress

Filed: 02/22/2016

enacted

the

Pg: 12 of 23

Foreign

Affairs

Reform

and

Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”) to implement the CAT.

See

Pub. L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (codified
as note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (2012)).
define

torture.

Instead,

it

FARRA itself does not

directs

“the

heads

of

the

appropriate agencies [to] prescribe regulations to implement the
obligations of the United States under Article 3 of the [CAT],
subject to any reservations, understandings, declarations, and
provisos contained in the United States Senate resolution of
ratification of the Convention.”

Id.

Pursuant to FARRA, the

Department of Justice promulgated regulations governing claims
for

CAT

relief.

See

Regulations

Concerning

the

Convention

Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478-01 (Feb. 19, 1999) (codified
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-208.18 (2016)).
These regulations adopt the specific intent interpretation
of the definition of torture, echoing the understanding of the
President and Senate.
act

by

mental,

which
is

severe

The regulations define torture as “any
pain

intentionally

§ 208.18(a)(1)

(2016).

or

suffering,

inflicted
A

separate

on

a

whether
person.”

subsection

physical
8

provides

or

C.F.R.
that,

“[i]n order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
An act that results in unanticipated or unintended severity of

12

Appeal: 14-2380

pain

Doc: 42

and

Filed: 02/22/2016

suffering

is

not

Pg: 13 of 23

torture.”

Id.

§

208.18(a)(5)

(emphasis added).
Thus, every entity responsible for the progress of the CAT
from

treaty

to

domestic

law

of

the

United

States

--

the

President, the Senate, and the Department of Justice -- made
clear that, in order to qualify as torture under the treaty, an
act

must

be

suffering.
intent.

specifically
But

Nor

presents:

at

did

no

any

intended

point
entity

did

to

cause

any

entity

address

the

severe
define

question

pain

and

specific
this

case

whether an actor must actually desire to cause severe

pain and suffering for his actions to constitute torture under
the CAT.
banc

That task fell to the BIA, which in 2002 issued its en

decision

in

In

evaluating CAT claims.

re

J-E-,

announcing

the

standard

See 23 I. & N. Dec. at 296-99.

for

Thus, In

re J-E- articulated a five prong test in defining torture under
the CAT:
(1) an act causing severe physical or mental pain or
suffering; (2) intentionally inflicted; (3) for a
proscribed purpose; (4) by or at the instigation of or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
who has custody or physical control of the victim; and
(5) not arising from lawful sanctions.
Id. at 297.
Most relevant here, In re J-E- expressly addressed whether
the practice of the Haitian government of indefinitely detaining
criminal

deportees

under

horrific

13

conditions

constitutes

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

torture.

Filed: 02/22/2016

See id. at 303-04.

Pg: 14 of 23

The BIA denied J-E-’s claim for

CAT relief, finding it deficient under the test’s second prong
because he offered “no evidence that Haitian authorities are
detaining criminal deportees with the specific intent to inflict
severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”
so

holding,

the

BIA

rejected

the

Id. at 300.

applicant’s

argument

In
that

Haiti’s detention of deportees with knowledge of the substandard
conditions

they

will

face

in

and

of

itself

satisfied

specific intent requirement for torture under the CAT.
held

that

“[a]lthough

detaining

criminal

Haitian

authorities

deportees

knowing

are

that

the

The BIA

intentionally
the

detention

facilities are substandard,” the applicant needed to show that
officials

were

“intentionally

and

deliberately

creating

and

maintaining such prison conditions in order to inflict torture”
to secure relief under the CAT.
In

re

J-E-

relied

on

Id. at 301.
the

definition

in

Black’s

Law

Dictionary that “[s]pecific intent is defined as the intent to
accomplish the precise criminal act that one is later charged
with

while

general

intent

recklessness or negligence.”
alteration omitted).

commonly

takes

the

form

of

Id. (internal quotation marks and

On the record before it, the BIA found

that “Haitian prison conditions are the result of budgetary and
management problems as well as the country’s severe economic
difficulties,” and not part of an intentional effort to punish
14

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

criminal

Filed: 02/22/2016

deportees.

Id.

Pg: 15 of 23

Consequently,

the

BIA

denied

the

applicant’s claim. 2

IV.
With

these

legal

principles

in

mind,

we

consider

their

application to the case at hand.
The BIA explained in In re J-E- that, as usually defined,
“specific intent” constitutes “[t]he intent to accomplish the
precise criminal act that one is later charged with.”

23 I. &

N. Dec. at 301 (quoting Intent, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014)).

This contrasts with “general intent,” defined as “[t]he

intent to perform an act even though the actor does not desire
the consequences that result.”

Intent, Black’s Law Dictionary.

Thus, the distinction between specific and general intent rests
on the mens rea related to the consequences of a wrongful act.

2

The BIA in In re J-E- also held that the CAT claim failed
under the test’s third prong, finding no evidence that Haitian
officials inflicted severe pain and suffering on detainees for a
proscribed purpose.
See id. at 300.
The IJ in Oxygene’s case
made a similar finding.
In his petition for review, Oxygene
makes a passing challenge to In re J-E-‘s proscribed purpose
holding, but fails to develop any arguments with respect to it.
As a result, Oxygene has waived this argument.
See Wahi v.
Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.
2009).
Even if preserved and meritorious, Oxygene’s argument
concerning the purpose prong would not save his petition. This
is so because, as we explain in Part IV, Oxygene’s challenge to
the intent prong fails, providing an independent ground on which
to deny his petition for review.
15

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Haiti’s

Filed: 02/22/2016

detention

of

Pg: 16 of 23

criminal

deportees

under

extremely

substandard conditions constitutes the challenged wrongful act
both here and in In re J-E-.

And in both cases, the applicant

argues that this detention results in pain and suffering from
malnutrition

and

under the CAT.

disease

severe

enough

to

constitute

torture

The BIA in In re J-E- rejected that argument.

The BIA concluded that, in light of the prevailing meaning of
“specific

intent,”

officials

“are

a

claimant

intentionally

needed
and

to

show

deliberately

that

Haitian

creating

and

maintaining such prison conditions in order to inflict torture,”
and that the record before it did not support such a finding.
23 I. & N. Dec. at 301.

Put another way, In re J-E- requires a

CAT claimant to demonstrate that the state actor who mistreats
him desires to cause his severe pain and suffering, and is not
merely negligent nor reckless as to the risk.
Oxygene argues that a claimant should be able to satisfy
this requirement by demonstrating that an official acts with
knowledge to a near certainty that he will cause severe pain and
suffering.
CAT

and

This constitutes one possible interpretation of the
its

implementing

regulations,

given

the

legal

presumption that people intend the foreseeable consequences of
their actions and given the trivial difference in culpability
between one who desires harm and one who acts knowing he will
cause harm.

See United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404
16

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

(1980).

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 17 of 23

After all, no entity -- not the President, not the

Senate, not the Department of Justice -- defined specific intent
as the CAT progressed from treaty to domestic law.

And specific

intent occupies a notoriously ambiguous space in the criminal
law.

See, e.g., id. at 403.

BIA’s

nineteen

asserts here.
But

the

board

members

Indeed, in In re J-E-, six of the
agreed

with

the

view

See 23 I. & N. Dec. at 304-318.
majority

of

the

BIA

in

In

re

J-E-

interpreted

§ 208.18(a)(5) as expressly foreclosing this argument.
review

the

Oxygene

BIA’s

legal

appropriate deference.

conclusions

de

novo,

we

While we

afford

them

See Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527

(4th Cir. 2012); see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415,
424 (1999). 3

Such deference is well deserved here.

Although the

conclusion reached by the BIA in In re J-E- is not the only
plausible interpretation of the CAT, this interpretation accords
with the prevailing meaning of specific intent and reflects the

3

Despite consensus among our sister circuits that courts
owe deference to In re J-E-, they have not agreed on the
appropriate degree of deference due to the BIA. Compare Auguste
v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 144-45 (3d Cir. 2005) (applying Chevron
deference to uphold the BIA’s interpretation as reasonable),
with Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 116-17 (2d Cir. 2007)
(affording the BIA “substantial deference” and citing cases
applying the standard from Auer).
We need not wade into the
debate over the proper degree of deference, for it makes no
difference in this case.
The BIA’s interpretation is not
plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulation under
Auer, nor is it unreasonable under Chevron.
17

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

likely wish

Filed: 02/22/2016

of

the

Pg: 18 of 23

President

and

Senate

to

incorporate

that

meaning into the CAT regulations.
Courts

routinely

describe

the

requisite

mens

rea

for

specific intent crimes as akin to purpose or desire, rather than
mere

knowledge.

intent

The

“corresponds

Supreme

loosely”

Court
with

has

noted

“purpose,”

that

specific

whereas

general

intent “corresponds loosely” with “knowledge.”

Bailey, 444 U.S.

at

when

405.

possesses
occur.
(“[A]

This

distinction

knowledge

to

a

holds

near

true

even

certainty

that

the

actor

something

will

See, e.g., 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 119 (2015)
specific-intent

crime

requires

not

simply

the

general

intent to do the immediate act with no particular, clear, or
undifferentiated end in mind, but the additional deliberate and
conscious purpose or design of accomplishing a very specific and
more

remote

result;

mere

knowledge

that

a

result

is

substantially certain to follow from one’s actions is not the
same as the specific intent or desire to achieve that result.”)
(emphasis added).
Of course, the factfinder in a criminal trial may infer an
actor’s

desire

to

bring

about

a

consequence

from

facts

illustrating that he knew precisely what would result from his
actions.

Thus, judges regularly instruct juries in criminal

cases that they may infer intent from knowledge.

See, e.g.,

United States v. Arthur, 544 F.2d 730, 737 (4th Cir. 1976) (“An
18

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

instruction

Filed: 02/22/2016

that

it

is

Pg: 19 of 23

reasonable

to

infer

that

a

person

ordinarily intends the natural and probable consequences of his
voluntary acts has generally been held proper.”).

But it is the

prerogative of the factfinder to make the inferential leap from
knowledge to desire.

Id.

In this way, the factfinder remains

free to consider facts suggesting that, despite a defendant’s
knowledge of a likely result, the defendant in fact did not
desire a certain consequence.

Oxygene’s proposed interpretation

of § 208.18(a) would preclude such an inquiry. 4
Oxygene’s

contrary

view

ignores

the

significance

of

the

understanding of the President and Senate at ratification that
torture

under

the

treaty

required

heightened

intent.

As

explained above, the definition of torture in the CAT included
an intent requirement.

Section 208.18(a)(5) incorporates the

4

None of the cases Oxygene cites suggest that the BIA
rendered an unreasonable interpretation of § 208.18(a) in In re
J-E-. At most, those cases illustrate the occasional difficulty
courts have in applying the common-law concept of specific
intent to particular facts or statutes.
Even in United States
v. Neiswender, 590 F.2d 1269, 1274 (4th Cir. 1979), where we
held that knowledge of foreseeable consequences satisfied the
intent element of a obstruction of justice conviction, the jury
instruction we approved merely charged the jury to “find an
intent to obstruct justice,” noting that “[i]t is ordinarily
reasonable to infer that a person intends the natural and
probable consequences of acts knowingly done or undertaken.”
Id. (emphasis added). While we recognized that some courts had
characterized obstruction of justice as a “specific intent”
crime, we saw “no need to undertake an extended excursion into
the subtleties of specific intent,” and did not define the term.
Id. at 1273.
19

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 20 of 23

instruction of the President and the Senate to require “specific
intent”

--

a

more

stringent

standard

“intent” from Article 1 of the CAT.

than

the

unqualified

The position of the BIA in

In re J-E- accords with this instruction.
In

contrast,

Oxygene’s

argument

goes

a

long

way

toward

requiring only general intent for claims under the CAT, reading
the explicit understanding of the President and Senate out of
the regulation.

While the President and Senate never expressly

stated that knowledge to a near certainty would not constitute
specific

intent,

traditionally

at

referred

common-law
to

the

“certain

term

narrow

“specific
classes

intent”

of

crimes”

where “heightened culpability has been thought to merit special
attention.”

Bailey,

444

U.S.

at

405.

It

was

entirely

reasonable for the BIA to conclude that the President and Senate
wished to incorporate into the CAT regulations a more exacting
intent standard that excludes mere knowledge when they chose a
term traditionally associated with heightened intent.
In sum, we join the majority of our sister circuits, who
have

considered

the

issue,

in

deferring

to

the

BIA’s

interpretation of the CAT’s intent requirement as articulated in
In re J-E-.

See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 988 (9th

Cir. 2008); Pierre, 502 F.3d at 116-17 (2d Cir.); Auguste, 395
F.3d at 144 (3d Cir.); Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1185-86
(11th Cir. 2004); Elien v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392, 396-97 (1st
20

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Cir. 2004).

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 21 of 23

But see Cherichel, 591 F.3d at 1014 (8th Cir.)

(affirming denial of CAT relief based on the court’s own reading
of the CAT and § 208.18(a) and taking no position on whether the
BIA’s interpretation in In re J-E- is entitled to deference). 5
We

note

that,

in

many

cases,

In

significant hurdle for CAT applicants.

re

J-E-

will

pose

no

For instance, if a CAT

claimant proves it is more likely than not he will be abducted
and severely beaten upon removal, the specific intent of the
torturer to inflict pain and suffering on his victim would be
established.

Moreover,

even

for

claims

premised

on

Haitian

prison conditions in which intent is more difficult to prove, In
re J-E- does not prevent an IJ from inferring specific intent if
the facts allow.
such claimants.

Rather, In re J-E- leaves the window open to
See Pierre, 502 F.3d at 116, 118 n.6 (deferring

to In re J-E- but noting that nothing in that opinion “prevents
the agency from drawing the inference, should the agency choose

5

The fact that the BIA relied on a legal dictionary in its
analysis, and that specific intent derives its meaning from
criminal law, does not negate the deference due to the BIA.
While the BIA may not have particular expertise in the
construction of criminal laws, it is expert at construing
ambiguous immigration regulations like § 208.18(a).
For that
same reason, Soliman v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2005),
offers Oxygene no assistance.
In Soliman we declined to defer
to the BIA’s interpretation of a Virginia criminal statute. See
419 F.3d at 281.
Soliman thus involved a very different
question than the deference due the BIA when interpreting not a
state statute but an immigration regulation promulgated by the
federal government.
21

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

Pg: 22 of 23

to do so, that a particular course of action is taken with
specific intent to inflict severe pain and suffering”). 6
Thus, other CAT applicants have succeeded where Oxygene and
the applicant in In re J-E- fell short.
removal

hearing,

the

petitioner

in

For example, at his

Ridore

v.

Holder

offered

testimony from an expert witness as to the intent of Haitian
officials in their detention of criminal deportees.
F.3d 907, 910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2012).

See 696

Accordingly, the IJ in

Ridore assessed a more robust factual record than that in In re
J-E-

(and

here).

On

that

basis,

the

IJ

there

found

that

allowing disease “to run rampant through the prison population”
and

failing

institutions

to

“maintain

[could]

proper

only

be

medical

facilities

attributable

to

in

those

[Haitian

officials’] willingness to use the jails to harm the inmates so
that they will never be a threat to the population again.”
at 913.

Accordingly, the IJ granted CAT relief.

6

Id.

Id. at 912-14.

Some commentators have asserted that after In re J-E- the
BIA has categorically denied CAT claims based on prison
conditions in Haiti.
See, e.g., Renee C. Redman, Defining
“Torture”: The Collateral Effect on Immigration Law of the
Attorney
General’s
Narrow
Interpretation
of
“Specifically
Intended” When Applied to United States Interrogators, 62 N.Y.U.
Ann. Surv. Am. L. 465, 482 (2007).
To the extent that
individual IJs or BIA members interpret In re J-E- as a
categorical impediment to CAT relief, they misread that
precedent.
In its treatment of specific intent under the CAT,
the BIA in In re J-E- merely held that the record facts in that
case did not support an inference that the Haitian officials
desired the pain and suffering of its detainees. See 23 I. & N.
Dec. at 300-01.
22

Appeal: 14-2380

Doc: 42

Filed: 02/22/2016

The BIA reversed.
was

“nothing

government

Id. at 914.

illogical”

intends

to

in

Pg: 23 of 23

But the Ninth Circuit held there

the

put

those

IJ’s

findings

prisoners

at

“inferring
risk

of

the

cruel,

abusive treatment that would qualify as ‘severe suffering’ or
‘torture.’”

Id. at 917.

petition for review.

For that reason, the court granted the

Id. at 917, 919.

We call attention to Ridore as an example of how, even when
a court defers to the BIA’s interpretation of specific intent in
In re J-E-, a Haitian citizen may be able to obtain CAT relief.
Of course, the record in Oxygene’s case does not contain similar
evidence as to Haitian officials’ specific intent to torture,
and the IJ and BIA declined to infer such intent.

V.
In conclusion, we reject Oxygene’s contention that the IJ
and

BIA

committed

legal

error

in

following

the

precedent

established in In re J-E- to deny his application for deferral
of removal under the CAT.
review

of

that

order.

Accordingly, we deny his petition for
We

dismiss

for

lack

of

jurisdiction

Oxygene’s petition for review from the order denying his motion
to reopen.
DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

23