In a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 7, 2020, Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a Lebanese national and U.S. lawful permanent resident, challenged his deportation based on fears of torture if returned to Lebanon. He sought protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), citing threats from Hezbollah and ISIS due to his Druze background and American ties.
Although an immigration judge granted CAT protection, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned the decision. The Eleventh Circuit initially dismissed parts of his case, but the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that factual challenges to CAT decisions could be reviewed—sending the case back for reconsideration.
Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the BIA’s denial, finding insufficient evidence that Nasrallah would be personally targeted for torture.
Key Lessons Learned
- Courts can review CAT factual claims, even for those with criminal convictions.
- Specific, personal risk—not general fear—is required for CAT protection.
- Past voluntary returns to a home country can weaken claims of future danger.
- Legal definitions matter—not every threat meets the definition of torture.
- Persistence pays off, even if it doesn’t change the final outcome, it can shift legal standards.
African Immigrant Rights Council 
Leave a comment