• Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

Levin and Pangilinan PC

U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law

¿Necesitas el sitio web en español?

800.974.2691
Contact Us
  • Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

Attorney General Holds That, Under DOJ Regulations Implementing The Convention Against Torture (CAT), An Act Constutues “Torture” Only If It Is Inflicted Or Approved By A Public Official Or Other Person “Acting In An Offical Capacity.” 8 C.F.R.§1208.18(a)(1). This Official Capacity Requirement Limits The Scope Of The CAT To Actions Performed “Under Color Of Law.” Matter Of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002). Nothing In Y-L-, Or Any Other Board Precedent, Should Be Construed To Endorse A Distinct, “Rogue Official” Standard. The “Under Color Of Law” Standard Draws No Categorical Distinction Between The Acts Of Low- And High – Level Officials. A Public Official, Regardless Of Rank, Acts “Under Color Of Law” When He “Exercise[s] Power Possessed By Virtue Of…Law And Made Possible Only Because [He Was] Clothed With The Authority Of…Law” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 47 (1988)(Quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).

September 30, 2020 Philip Levin

On July 14, 2020, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer the instant case to him for review of it’s decision per 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(h)(1)(i), vacating that decision and remanding the case to the BIA for review by a three-member panel, in what appears to be an attempt to reduce the number and source of those acts that constitute “torture” under the applicable regulations. 

In its original decision, Matter of O-F-A-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 709 (BIA 2019)(O-F-A-S I), the Board had dismissed Respondent’s appeal of a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for, among other relief, CAT protection. He claimed he would be tortured if removed to his native Guatemala, citing a prior incident in which 5 men wearing police uniforms and carrying high-caliber handguns had forced their way into his house, assaulted and robbed him “and threatened further harm to him and his family.” Concluding that the men either were not police officers or were “rogue agent[s] acting outside the scope of the law”, the IJ found that Respondent had not met his burden of showing that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the instigation, consent, or acquiescence of a public official or other person “acting in an official capacity.” The BIA agreed, dismissing the appeal, but in its opinion in O-F-A-S I, the Board announced a “national standard” for the “official capacity” requirement, a standard it termed both an “under color of law” inquiry and “the rogue official question.” The AG explained at the beginning of the instant decision (O-F-A-S II) that he granted review here “to clarify the proper approach for determining when public officials who commit torture are ‘acting in an official capacity’ for the purpose of deciding [one’s] eligibility for protection under the CAT.” 

AG Barr initially explained that the DOJ has promulgated regulations prohibiting the removal of non-citizens to countries where it is more likely than not that they will be tortured. These regulations define “torture” as any “act by which severe pain or suffering…is intentionally inflicted on a person”  for an illicit purpose. The “pain or suffering” must be “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.” 

Noting that the “official capacity” requirement had first been raised by the DOJ in Matter of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002), the AG stated that that decision’s description of the “offical capacity” standard, and the way Immigration Courts have applied it, has led observers to question “whether two different tests have evolved” to determine if torture is inflicted by one in an “official capacity”. The federal courts have interpreted Y-L- to hold that action in an official capacity means “under color of law,” while some IJs have disregarded this rubric and, instead, focused on Y-L-’s discussion distinguishing between “authoritative” and “rogue” officials. Courts have interpreted those decisions as applying a distinct “rogue official” test, claimed the AG, under which extrajudicial acts by corrupt, low-level agents will not constitute “torture” if government authorities would not condone or acquiesce in the low-level agents’ behavior. 

The Board had agreed with the IJ in O-F-A-S I that Respondent’s attackers were not acting “in an official capacity” but seemingly reached that conclusion under a “rogue official” standard, explaining that certain, unlawful acts committed by one possessing power by virtue of law can fall within the CAT’s scope. The AG further noted that O-F-A-S I had clarified that an act motivated by personal objectives “is under color of law when an official uses his official authority to fulfill his personal objectives,” i.e., “tortuous conduct” by one acting “in an official capacity.” Thus, “under color of law” is covered by the CAT, but such conduct by an official not acting in an official capacity, also known as a “rogue official”, is not so covered. To the extent the BIA used “rogue official” as shorthand for one not acting in an official capacity, held the AG, it “accurately stated the law.” The “under color of law” standard, however, is “correct” and is “the only standard that immigration courts should apply when evaluating claims for protection under the CAT.”

Additionally, stated AG Barr, courts have long used “in an official capacity” and “under color of law” as “alternative and overlapping ways of expressing the concept of state action.” As such, there is “no material difference” between the two concepts of official conduct; in full agreement, the AG  reaffirmed Matter of Y-L-’s holding that the two phrases mean the same thing. Whether the acts of any particular official, low-level, or otherwise, satisfy this standard is a fact-intensive inquiry that depends on whether the conduct in question is fairly attributable to the state. The AG, therefore, confirmed that misuse of authority made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of law may violate the CAT. The Board’s decision in O-F-A-S I was vacated and remanded for review by a three-member panel in accordance with the instant opinion. Matter of O-F-A-S- 28 I&N Dec. 35 (A.G. 2020). 

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. 

You have questions. We have answers.

Filed Under: Attorney General, BIA, Blog Tagged With: William Barr

Contact Us

Recent Blog Posts

  • U.S. Visa Interview Waiver Program: Important 2025 Updates
  • New DOS Guidance on Mandating Social Media Review of all F-1, M-1, and J-1 visa applicants and Possible Revocations: What You Need to Know
  • H-1B LOTTERY FY 2026 AND THE RECENT MODERNIZATION RULE 
  • Birthright Citizenship Under Fire: Trump’s Latest Executive Order Explained
  • BIA Holds That Its Prior Holding In Matter Of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), That An Objection To A Noncompliant Notice To Appear Will Generally Be Considered Timely If Raised Prior To The Close Of Pleadings Is Not A Change In Law, And Thus Matter Of Fernandes Applies Retroactively.

Practice Areas

  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

LEAVE A REVIEW

Leave a Review on Google

        

San Francisco Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
©2025 Levin and Pangilinan PC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Labor Certification
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Hearings & Appeals
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 · XML Sitemap · Sitemap

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. LPPC will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

LPPC will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. LPPC will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on LPPC to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. LPPC will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.