Case Overview
Matter of D-J-L- is a precedential Board of Immigration Appeals decision addressing the evidentiary weight that immigration courts may assign to expert testimony in applications for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Board held that an Immigration Judge erred by giving significant weight to testimony from an expert witness whose background and testimony demonstrated an inability to impartially evaluate deportations to Haiti. Because the Immigration Judge’s determination that the applicant would more likely than not be tortured relied heavily on that testimony, the Board vacated the grant of CAT deferral and reinstated the removal order.
Key Facts in Matter of D-J-L-
The applicant was a native and citizen of Haiti who was subject to removal from the United States as a criminal deportee. He applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture, seeking deferral of removal based on the claim that he would face severe harm if returned to Haiti.
The applicant argued that several factors would place him at risk of torture upon return. He asserted that Haitian authorities would likely detain him indefinitely as a criminal deportee and that prison conditions in Haiti would lead to starvation, lack of medical care, and physical abuse. The applicant also claimed that his mental illness and physical health conditions would make him particularly vulnerable to mistreatment in detention facilities.
In addition, the applicant alleged that criminal gangs in Haiti would target him for violence and that Haitian officials would acquiesce in such harm. According to his argument, the cumulative effect of prison conditions, lack of medical treatment, and targeted abuse would amount to torture under the applicable regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture.
The case had previously been remanded by the Board to the Immigration Judge for further consideration of CAT eligibility. Following the remand, the Immigration Judge issued a new decision on March 24, 2025 granting deferral of removal. The Department of Homeland Security appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
A central element of the Immigration Judge’s ruling was the testimony and written declaration of an expert witness who worked with deportees in Haiti. The Immigration Judge found this expert credible and relied heavily on her opinion in concluding that the applicant would more likely than not suffer torture if removed to Haiti.
Legal Issues Presented in Matter of D-J-L-
The Board of Immigration Appeals considered several legal questions central to the adjudication of Convention Against Torture protection claims.
The primary issue was whether the Immigration Judge improperly relied on expert testimony that lacked sufficient impartiality and evidentiary support.
A related question in Matter of D-J-L- was whether the remaining record evidence established that the applicant would more likely than not be subjected to torture in Haiti, as required under the regulatory framework governing CAT protection.
The Board also examined whether evidence describing poor detention conditions and isolated incidents of abuse in Haitian prisons was sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s burden of proof for CAT deferral.
Legal Reasoning and Analysis in Matter of D-J-L-
Standards of Review and Evidentiary Framework
The Board began its analysis by clarifying the applicable standards of review. Predictive factual findings concerning what may occur upon removal are reviewed for clear error, while the determination of whether predicted harm satisfies the legal definition of torture is reviewed de novo.
The Immigration Judge had determined that the applicant would likely face indefinite detention in Haiti and would suffer severe mistreatment in prison conditions. These findings were based largely on the testimony and declaration of the expert witness presented by the applicant.
The Board acknowledged that immigration proceedings are not governed by strict evidentiary rules and that expert testimony may be admitted if it is probative and fundamentally fair. Immigration Judges possess broad discretion to admit evidence and determine the weight it should receive. However, the Board emphasized that expert opinions must rest on a reliable factual or evidentiary foundation in order to be persuasive.
Evaluation of the Expert Testimony
The Board concluded that the Immigration Judge gave excessive weight to the expert’s testimony. Although the witness possessed professional experience related to deportees in Haiti, her background reflected substantial advocacy against deportations to that country. During cross-examination, the witness acknowledged that she had previously supported stopping all deportations to Haiti.
The Board determined that this advocacy position suggested an inability to impartially evaluate the risks associated with removal to Haiti. While some level of bias does not necessarily render expert testimony inadmissible, the Board explained that an Immigration Judge errs when substantial weight is given to an opinion from a witness who appears unwilling to consider contrary evidence or provide an objective assessment.
In this case, the Board found that the expert’s opinions lacked sufficient evidentiary support and were therefore unreliable as the primary basis for concluding that the applicant would face a likelihood of torture.
Assessment of the Remaining Record Evidence
After discounting the expert testimony, the Board evaluated the remaining evidence in the record. The Board reiterated established precedent that indefinite detention in substandard prison conditions does not constitute torture under the Convention Against Torture unless authorities intentionally impose those conditions for the purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering.
The Board also determined that anecdotal reports of isolated deaths or mistreatment in Haitian prisons were insufficient to establish that the applicant personally would more likely than not experience torture. Evidence demonstrating a general possibility of harm does not meet the burden required for protection under the Convention Against Torture; applicants must establish a particularized risk of torture directed at them.
Similarly, the Board found that the Immigration Judge’s determination that criminal gangs would torture the applicant lacked adequate objective evidence. The record did not demonstrate that torture was so widespread or inevitable that the applicant personally faced a clear probability of experiencing it.
Because the Immigration Judge’s ruling relied primarily on unreliable expert testimony and insufficient supporting evidence, the Board held that the applicant failed to establish eligibility for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Board therefore sustained the government’s appeal and vacated the grant of CAT protection.
Practical Implications
Matter of D-J-L- provides important guidance for immigration practitioners handling Convention Against Torture cases and other immigration proceedings involving expert testimony.
The decision reinforces that expert testimony in immigration court is not automatically persuasive merely because a witness has specialized experience. Immigration Judges must evaluate whether the expert’s conclusions are supported by reliable facts and whether the witness demonstrates impartial analysis rather than advocacy-driven opinions.
The ruling also emphasizes that country conditions evidence alone rarely satisfies the burden of proof for CAT protection. Applicants must present individualized evidence demonstrating that they personally face a probability of torture. Generalized reports of poor prison conditions, violence, or isolated incidents of abuse typically will not be sufficient without evidence connecting those risks specifically to the applicant.
For applicants with criminal histories who face removal to countries with difficult detention conditions, the decision clarifies that harsh prison environments do not automatically constitute torture under U.S. immigration law. The legal definition requires proof that government officials intend to inflict severe pain or suffering.
Employers, immigration practitioners, and foreign nationals involved in removal proceedings should also recognize that evidentiary credibility and expert neutrality can significantly affect case outcomes. Expert declarations should be carefully supported with objective documentation and balanced analysis to withstand judicial scrutiny.
How can an immigration lawyer from the Immigration Professional Association help?
An immigration lawyer from the Immigration Professional Association can assist individuals facing removal proceedings by carefully evaluating eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture and other forms of relief. Attorneys can help develop legally sound evidentiary records that include reliable country conditions documentation, properly qualified expert testimony, and individualized risk analysis tailored to the applicant’s circumstances. Legal professionals can also prepare witnesses, review expert reports for evidentiary support, and ensure that expert testimony satisfies the standards articulated by immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
In cases involving detention risks, medical conditions, or country-specific dangers, attorneys can coordinate with credible specialists and gather objective documentation that strengthens the factual record. Additionally, experienced immigration counsel can identify procedural errors or evidentiary misapplications that may justify administrative appeals or federal court review. Early legal strategy and careful case preparation can significantly improve the likelihood of obtaining relief or mitigating the consequences of removal proceedings.
