Steve Lundi v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 23-1631
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1631 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1631

STEVE LUNDI,

Petitioner,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 13, 2025 Decided: March 27, 2025

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Andrew Barreto, GOREN & BARRETO, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lauren L. Taiclet, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1631 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Steven Lundi, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigrations judge’s

decision denying withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

To qualify for relief under the CAT, Lundi must show that he is more likely than not to be

tortured if he returns to Haiti. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2024). “Torture” is defined as

“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally

inflicted on a person” for an act he has committed or “for any reason based on

discrimination of any kind” that 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.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.18(a)(1) (2024); see Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968, 971 (4th Cir. 2019).

“Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity

constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal

responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7) (2024). “The

official or officials need not have actual knowledge of the torture; it is enough if they

simply turn a blind eye to it.” Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 200 (4th Cir. 2014)

(internal quotation marks omitted). The likelihood of torture need not be linked to a

protected ground. Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 2012).

We review the denial of relief under the CAT for substantial evidence and “[t]he

agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020)

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We review the relevant legal determinations of the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1631 Doc: 34 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Board under de novo review. Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012). We

have reviewed the record and Lundi’s claim and conclude that the evidence does not

compel a ruling on contrary to any of the administrative factual findings and that substantial

evidence supports the denial of relief. Lundi has not shown that he would be targeted for

torture, and because the Board applied Fourth Circuit law, the immigration judge’s reliance

on Third Circuit law does not require remand. Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review. In re Lundi (B.I.A. June 24, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED