News & Insights

The Story

The respondent, a Venezuelan woman, served as a military counterintelligence officer and lieutenant. She claimed she would be tortured or killed if forced to return to Venezuela because she once refused an order from her commander (“Commander Ortado”) to falsify documents.

She said:

• Ortado threatened to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill her and her family.
• She witnessed another officer being tortured.
• In 2021, soldiers twice came to her home with threats, which led her to retire from the military.
• She feared that, because of her military background, the Venezuelan government would easily identify her upon return.

Although she had not been harmed after mid-2021, she applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

An Immigration Judge agreed with her, ruling that she was likely to be tortured if sent back. Because of past threats, her role in the military, and Venezuela’s record of abuses, the judge granted her CAT deferral of removal. DHS (the government) appealed.

The Legal Issue

The question was:

Does evidence of past threats and general human rights violations in Venezuela prove that this specific person would more likely than not be tortured if returned?

The BIA’s Decision

The Board of Immigration Appeals disagreed with the Immigration Judge and overturned the grant of CAT protection.

Here’s why:

1. Last threat was years ago.
   The threats occurred in July 2021, but the respondent lived in Venezuela until February 2024 without being harmed or contacted by Ortado or his forces.
2. Retirement was uneventful.
   She officially retired from the military in December 2021, and there was no evidence that anyone pursued her afterward, even though the military knew her addresses.
3. General conditions are not enough.
   Venezuela does have a poor human rights record, and Ortado was sanctioned internationally. But CAT protection requires proof of a particularized, ongoing threat—not just evidence of general violence or past abuses against others.
4. Clear error by the judge.
   The Immigration Judge mistakenly found that threats continued after her retirement. The record showed otherwise, so the Board corrected that factual error.

Outcome

• The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal.
• CAT protection was denied.
• The respondent was ordered removed to Venezuela.

The Board stressed that unless someone can show an individualized and current risk of torture, general fear of conditions in a country—even a repressive one like Venezuela—is not enough for CAT deferral.

Why This Case Matters

• For asylum seekers and CAT applicants: You must prove more than just general danger in your country. U.S. immigration law requires clear evidence that you personally face a high likelihood of torture.
• For Venezuelan applicants: Even though the U.S. government recognizes widespread abuses by the Venezuelan regime, this decision shows that applicants still need strong, up-to-date, and individualized evidence of threats.
• For immigration judges: The decision warns judges not to grant CAT relief based on old threats or country reports alone. The focus must be on whether the person faces a specific, continuing risk.

Bottom Line

In Matter of O-Y-A-E- (2025), the BIA ruled that a Venezuelan ex-military officer did not qualify for CAT protection. While she had been threatened in 2021, she lived unharmed for several years afterward, and the evidence did not show that she still faced a personal, ongoing risk of torture.
This case underscores a tough reality: past threats and general country conditions are not enough—immigrants must prove a current, individualized danger to win CAT relief.