Refugee, Asylum, and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading, Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), Cancelation of Removal, Adjustment of Status

It is a course of fundamental rights for global citizens. Alongside Refugee, Asylum, and Withholding of removal, the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) ratified by the US government is a form of relief to individuals fearing persecution. While asylum applicants only need to prove a well-founded fear of persecution for their membership in a particular race, nationality, or social or political group [INA §§ 101(a)(42), 208(b), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)], UNCAT and Withholding of removal applicants must prove that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if removed to a particular country. Proving that torture would be more likely than not to occur is a harder standard than proving that an applicant’s fear is “well-founded,” which only requires a “reasonable” fear (INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421). Nevertheless, UNCAT has material repercussions not only in criminal but also other deportable cases. The Supreme Court’s Zadvydas v. Davis advised that certain aliens under CAT protection cannot be indefinitely detained. It consequently enhances the chances for unfairly “criminalized” deportable immigrants to be released as long as CAT protections make their removal not possible. The fact that there are no bars to eligibility for relief for an individual is what makes UNCAT a powerful tool for ILHR advocates in the US…