NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0184n.06
Case No. 23-3628
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED ) Apr 25, 2024 LEON GARFIELD ROACHE, KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION
Before: LARSEN, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Leon Garfield Roache seeks review of a final order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”), dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ’s”) order denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against
Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17 (“CAT”). Finding no clear error in the IJ’s factual determinations,
the Board agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Roache failed to show a likelihood that he would be
subjected to future torture, with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, if he were
removed to Jamaica. Because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s
decision, we deny the petition for review.
I.
Roache, a native and citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States as a teen in 1987 and
attained the status of lawful permanent resident. Decades later, in 2021, Roache was convicted in No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841(b)(1)(A). About a year later, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Roache
with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as a noncitizen who was convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).
At his removal hearing, Roache admitted the factual allegations contained in the NTA and
conceded the charge of removability. Roache also applied for asylum and withholding of removal
under sections 208(b)(1)(B) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B), 1231(b)(3)(A), and deferral of removal under the CAT. At the merits
hearing for his applications before an IJ, Roache testified that he feared returning to Jamaica for
two reasons: (1) two gang members threatened Roache after they extorted his uncle, Clarence
Sawyers, for money before ultimately murdering him; and (2) relatives of “Cat Eyes”1—a man
who Roache’s brother killed many years prior—also threatened him.
Roache testified that the gang members involved in his uncle’s murder were never brought
to justice because of the gang’s influence over government officials. Roache also testified that his
mother told him the gangs were still breaking into homes and harassing, extorting, and killing
people. Regarding Cat Eyes’s family, Roache testified that he did not believe that the police or
Jamaican government would protect him because they did nothing after his uncle’s murder. He
also relayed that Cat Eyes’s brother worked for the “police government” and one or two of his
1 The BIA’s opinion refers to this individual as “Cat Eye,” but in Petitioner’s briefing to this court, briefing to the BIA and his own affidavit, he refers to the individual as “Cat Eyes.” For purposes of this opinion, we adopt the spelling of the Petitioner. -2- No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
uncles worked for the government in Jamaica. According to Roache, he would be killed or tortured
if he returned to Jamaica because of the threats and lack of protection from the government.
In addition to his own testimony, Roache provided various documents in support of his
claims for protection, including (1) his own declaration, (2) letters from his family, including his
mother, siblings, and children, and (3) the case docket for his 2021 conviction. Roache also
submitted a news article that discussed the circumstances surrounding his uncle’s death and a copy
of his uncle’s memorial service program.
In February 2023, the IJ denied Roache’s applications for asylum and withholding of
removal and denied his request for deferral of removal under the CAT. Roache appealed to the
BIA, which agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Roache had not demonstrated that he was eligible
for protection under the CAT and dismissed his appeal. The Board determined that Roache had
not “meaningfully challenge[d]” the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal, so he waived any challenges on those bases on appeal. (AR 3 (citing Matter of Garcia,
28 I. & N. Dec. 693, 693 n.1 (BIA 2023))). Turning then to the IJ’s denial of his application for
deferral of removal under the CAT, the Board addressed Roache’s asserted fears of torture and
death. The Board found that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that there was insufficient evidence
to support either of the two bases for his fears. In particular, Roache had not shown that it was
more likely than not that Cat Eyes’s family members would target him for future torture,
considering that Cat Eyes’s murder occurred roughly thirty years prior; Roache’s brother was
imprisoned for the crime; and Roache received his last threat in 2005—some eighteen years before
his hearing. The Board also agreed with the IJ’s determination that Roache did not establish that,
more likely than not, he would be subjected to torture by the gang members allegedly involved in
his uncle’s death. In that regard, the IJ noted that it had been over six years since Roache heard
-3- No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
from the gang members who had threatened him, and Roache had offered insufficient evidence to
show that the perpetrators went unpunished by authorities.
Similarly, the Board agreed with the IJ that Roache’s uncorroborated assertion that Cat
Eyes’s family members work in the government was speculative and, therefore, insufficient to
show that the Jamaican government or its officials would consent to or acquiesce in any harm.
Relatedly, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s finding that Roache’s (and his family’s) failure
to report the alleged threats they received to authorities meant the Jamaican police were unaware
of any potential torture of Roache. Lastly, the Board considered whether Roache could safely
relocate to another location in Jamaica and found that he could. Roache timely petitioned for
review.
II.
Circuit courts have jurisdiction to review a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
When, as is the case here, the Board issues its own decision in lieu of summarily affirming an IJ’s
decision, we review the Board’s decision “as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. Holder,
557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). To the extent the Board adopted the IJ’s reasoning, we review
the IJ’s decision as well. See Turcios-Flores v. Garland, 67 F.4th 347, 353 (6th Cir. 2023). We
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0184n.06
Case No. 23-3628
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED ) Apr 25, 2024 LEON GARFIELD ROACHE, KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) OPINION
Before: LARSEN, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Leon Garfield Roache seeks review of a final order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”), dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ’s”) order denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against
Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17 (“CAT”). Finding no clear error in the IJ’s factual determinations,
the Board agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Roache failed to show a likelihood that he would be
subjected to future torture, with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, if he were
removed to Jamaica. Because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s
decision, we deny the petition for review.
I.
Roache, a native and citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States as a teen in 1987 and
attained the status of lawful permanent resident. Decades later, in 2021, Roache was convicted in No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841(b)(1)(A). About a year later, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Roache
with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as a noncitizen who was convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B).
At his removal hearing, Roache admitted the factual allegations contained in the NTA and
conceded the charge of removability. Roache also applied for asylum and withholding of removal
under sections 208(b)(1)(B) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8
U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B), 1231(b)(3)(A), and deferral of removal under the CAT. At the merits
hearing for his applications before an IJ, Roache testified that he feared returning to Jamaica for
two reasons: (1) two gang members threatened Roache after they extorted his uncle, Clarence
Sawyers, for money before ultimately murdering him; and (2) relatives of “Cat Eyes”1—a man
who Roache’s brother killed many years prior—also threatened him.
Roache testified that the gang members involved in his uncle’s murder were never brought
to justice because of the gang’s influence over government officials. Roache also testified that his
mother told him the gangs were still breaking into homes and harassing, extorting, and killing
people. Regarding Cat Eyes’s family, Roache testified that he did not believe that the police or
Jamaican government would protect him because they did nothing after his uncle’s murder. He
also relayed that Cat Eyes’s brother worked for the “police government” and one or two of his
1 The BIA’s opinion refers to this individual as “Cat Eye,” but in Petitioner’s briefing to this court, briefing to the BIA and his own affidavit, he refers to the individual as “Cat Eyes.” For purposes of this opinion, we adopt the spelling of the Petitioner. -2- No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
uncles worked for the government in Jamaica. According to Roache, he would be killed or tortured
if he returned to Jamaica because of the threats and lack of protection from the government.
In addition to his own testimony, Roache provided various documents in support of his
claims for protection, including (1) his own declaration, (2) letters from his family, including his
mother, siblings, and children, and (3) the case docket for his 2021 conviction. Roache also
submitted a news article that discussed the circumstances surrounding his uncle’s death and a copy
of his uncle’s memorial service program.
In February 2023, the IJ denied Roache’s applications for asylum and withholding of
removal and denied his request for deferral of removal under the CAT. Roache appealed to the
BIA, which agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Roache had not demonstrated that he was eligible
for protection under the CAT and dismissed his appeal. The Board determined that Roache had
not “meaningfully challenge[d]” the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal, so he waived any challenges on those bases on appeal. (AR 3 (citing Matter of Garcia,
28 I. & N. Dec. 693, 693 n.1 (BIA 2023))). Turning then to the IJ’s denial of his application for
deferral of removal under the CAT, the Board addressed Roache’s asserted fears of torture and
death. The Board found that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that there was insufficient evidence
to support either of the two bases for his fears. In particular, Roache had not shown that it was
more likely than not that Cat Eyes’s family members would target him for future torture,
considering that Cat Eyes’s murder occurred roughly thirty years prior; Roache’s brother was
imprisoned for the crime; and Roache received his last threat in 2005—some eighteen years before
his hearing. The Board also agreed with the IJ’s determination that Roache did not establish that,
more likely than not, he would be subjected to torture by the gang members allegedly involved in
his uncle’s death. In that regard, the IJ noted that it had been over six years since Roache heard
-3- No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
from the gang members who had threatened him, and Roache had offered insufficient evidence to
show that the perpetrators went unpunished by authorities.
Similarly, the Board agreed with the IJ that Roache’s uncorroborated assertion that Cat
Eyes’s family members work in the government was speculative and, therefore, insufficient to
show that the Jamaican government or its officials would consent to or acquiesce in any harm.
Relatedly, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s finding that Roache’s (and his family’s) failure
to report the alleged threats they received to authorities meant the Jamaican police were unaware
of any potential torture of Roache. Lastly, the Board considered whether Roache could safely
relocate to another location in Jamaica and found that he could. Roache timely petitioned for
review.
II.
Circuit courts have jurisdiction to review a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
When, as is the case here, the Board issues its own decision in lieu of summarily affirming an IJ’s
decision, we review the Board’s decision “as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. Holder,
557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). To the extent the Board adopted the IJ’s reasoning, we review
the IJ’s decision as well. See Turcios-Flores v. Garland, 67 F.4th 347, 353 (6th Cir. 2023). We
review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. See Zometa-
Orellana v. Garland, 19 F.4th 970, 976 (6th Cir. 2021). Under the substantial evidence standard,
“the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). This is a “highly deferential”
standard. Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 583 (2020).
-4- No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
III.
Roache maintains that the BIA erred in concluding that he failed to demonstrate eligibility
for deferral of removal under the CAT. Among other things, he argues that the Board did not
appropriately weigh the testimonial evidence and did not consider the corroborating evidence that
he offered, including a “news article, memorial service and other letters submitted as exhibits.”
(ECF 21, Petitioner’s Br., Page 12). We disagree.
To qualify for CAT protection, Roache must show that he “more likely than not” would be
subjected to torture if he were removed to Jamaica. Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland, 87 F.4th 838,
851 (6th Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). Torture, under the CAT, means
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted . . . when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Zaldana Menijar
v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491, 501 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
Importantly, the asserted threat of torture must be “particularized” and not merely general in
nature. Marqus v. Barr, 968 F.3d 583, 587 (6th Cir. 2020).
Under this standard, Roache must prove that if he returns to Jamaica, he will probably face
torture at the behest, or with the acquiescence of, the Jamaican government. On this score, there
is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that he has not met this
burden. First, regarding his fear of future torture at the hands of Cat Eyes’s relatives, the last threat
he received was quite remote in time—having occurred around 2005. He has not alleged, and the
record does not reveal, any more recent threats. Moreover, despite testimony that Cat Eyes’s
relatives work in the Jamaican government, Roache admitted that he is unaware of who these
relatives are or what specific positions they hold (or have held) in the government. Roache also
-5- No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
points to no evidence tending to show that Cat Eyes’s purported relatives in government have, or
had, any desire to harm him. And Roache confirmed that he does not fear any other government
officials.
These facts support the Board’s conclusion, which echoes the IJ’s, that any threat of torture
related to Roache’s brother’s role in a decades-old murder is too speculative and attenuated to
establish eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT. We do not find the evidence to which
Roache directs us to be so compelling as to warrant a different result.
There is, likewise, substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that Roache
failed to demonstrate that the gang members involved in his uncle’s murder would subject Roache
to torture with the government’s acquiescence. To be sure, the IJ found both Roache and his
nephew to be credible in their respective accounts of the circumstances of his uncle’s murder and
the related threats Roache received. Nevertheless, this credibility finding does not undermine the
Board’s determination that the threat of harm from the gang members is too speculative to satisfy
the evidentiary burden for establishing likely torture. As noted, the gang members’ last alleged
threat occurred six years before Roache’s hearing, and there is no evidence that the gang members
still harbor a desire to harm Roache. The violence they purportedly visited upon Roache’s uncle
was motivated by extortion and witness testimony prevention; it was not related to Roache. And,
as the IJ noted, the gang members’ concern with preventing witness testimony suggests that they
do not enjoy government acquiescence in their criminal activity. The record evidence does not
compel a conclusion contrary to the Board’s.
Roache’s additional argument that the IJ and the Board failed to address some of his
evidence—including the news article, obituary, and letters from family members—is equally
unavailing. Although the Board did not discuss the news article or memorial service program in
-6- No. 23-3628, Roache v. Garland
its opinion, there is no requirement to “list every possible positive and negative factor in its
decision, much less write an exegesis on every contention.” Kilic v. Barr, 965 F.3d 469, 474 (6th
Cir. 2020) (citation and quotations omitted). And regarding the letters, Roache does not explain
how they support his claim. Importantly, the Board and the IJ discussed his uncle’s death at length
in their decisions and considered the groups that allegedly threatened Roache. Furthermore, the
proffered evidence is immaterial to the question of whether Roache will experience torture with
the acquiescence of a public official if he were to return to Jamaica.
Finally, in concluding that Roache failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate
eligibility for CAT protection, both the IJ and the Board noted that Roache did not show that he
was unable to safely relocate upon his return to Jamaica. Roache’s petition before us does not
challenge this finding.
In sum, we are satisfied that there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion
that Roache failed to demonstrate that he would “more likely than not” be tortured if he were to
return to Jamaica. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). As such, we find no basis for remand.
IV.
For the reasons set forth above, we deny the petition for review.
-7-