In Matter of G-M-I-, the Board of Immigration Appeals vacated an Immigration Judge’s grant of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA held that the Immigration Judge clearly erred by assigning full weight to an expert witness opinion that lacked a sufficient factual basis. Moreover, the BIA reaffirmed that generalized country conditions evidence, even when filtered through expert testimony, does not satisfy the CAT requirement of establishing an individualized, more-likely-than-not probability of torture.
Key Facts in Matter of G-M-I-
Respondent is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China. In 2014, a federal court convicted him of conspiring to import 150 kg or more of cocaine, sentencing him to 14 years in prison. After service of the sentence, DHS issued a Notice to Appear charging removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony) and § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) (controlled-substance violation). Respondent conceded removability. He then applied for deferral of removal under the CAT.
Procedural History
On June 20, 2024, the BIA reviewed the case and remanded the record. On March 26, 2025, the Immigration Judge granted deferral of removal under the CAT after affording “full weight” to the respondent’s expert witness. DHS appealed. The BIA sustained the appeal on February 4, 2026, vacated the grant, and ordered the respondent removed pursuant to the underlying removal order.
Legal Issues Presented in Matter of G-M-I-
- Whether the Immigration Judge properly afforded significant weight to an expert witness whose opinions on the likelihood of torture in China were based on anecdotal and factually inaccurate information.
- Whether the respondent established that it is more likely than not he will be tortured in China by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1)).
Legal Reasoning and Analysis
Expert Evidence Standard. The BIA reiterated that expert testimony is evaluated like all other evidence (Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2020)). An opinion is persuasive only if it rests on a reliable factual or evidentiary basis (Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97 (BIA 2020)). Immigration Judges may not simply defer to an expert’s predictive inferences when those inferences are based on commonly understood generalized evidence.
Deficiencies in the Expert’s Opinion in Matter of G-M-I-. The expert lacked direct knowledge or professional experience with death-penalty or repatriation cases involving drug offenders convicted abroad. Additionally, he acknowledged a “paucity of statistics” and “little official information” on the treatment of expatriated drug traffickers. The expert relied on two anecdotes that were either factually incorrect or materially distinguishable. (1) The first was a mischaracterized Canadian case that actually involved a Canadian citizen convicted in China. (2) The second was the 2017 abduction of a Hong Kong tycoon with no demonstrated similarity to the respondent. He did not distinguish between domestic drug offenders and those convicted abroad. Furthermore, he did not provide any verified examples of torture or execution of individuals in the respondent’s precise circumstances.
CAT Burden. If China becomes aware of the conviction and detains the respondent upon his arrival, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that he is likely to face torture. The information available does not support a conclusion that torture is more probable than not. Generalized information regarding severe penalties for drug offenses in China, along with prison conditions and reputational issues, fails to satisfy the “every step in the hypothetical chain” requirement. The Board differentiated this case from instances where specific, individualized evidence of targeting was provided.
Practical Implications
- Applicants. Chinese nationals and others convicted of serious drug offenses abroad, are required to provide evidence that is significantly more personalized. This evidence must surpass general country-condition reports or expert opinions based solely on anecdotes.
- Experts. Counsel should verify that any expert retained can clearly present a solid factual foundation for their predictive conclusions. Additionally, the expert must be able to withstand cross-examination regarding specific, comparable cases.
- Practitioners. When preparing CAT applications involving repatriated drug offenders, prioritize verifiable statistics, recent verified incidents involving similarly situated returnees, and evidence of particularized governmental interest in the individual.
- DHS/ICE: The decision provides a clear roadmap for challenging expert testimony that overreaches from generalized sources.
Key Takeaways
- Expert opinions on future torture must rest on a reliable factual foundation; anecdotal or inaccurate data significantly undercuts their weight.
- Generalized country-conditions evidence, even when filtered through an expert, does not satisfy the “more likely than not” standard for CAT deferral.
- Every link in the hypothetical chain leading to torture must itself be shown to be more likely than not to occur.
- Immigration Judges may not simply defer to an expert’s predictive conclusions on matters within their ordinary competence.
- Claims involving repatriated drug offenders require highly individualized evidence of targeting or torture risk specific to the respondent’s circumstances.
- The BIA continues to apply exacting scrutiny to CAT applications that rely primarily on broad assertions about Chinese criminal-justice practices.
