Matter of K-Y-V-R- Explained: BIA Narrows CAT Protection Standard

The Attorney General has designated as precedent a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that significantly narrows the Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection standard in gang-threat cases. In Matter of K-Y-V-R-, 30 I&N Dec. 203 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4268, decided by the Board on September 10, 2026, and designated as precedent by Attorney General Order No. 7272-2026 on October 27, 2026, the Board held that an Immigration Judge erred in granting CAT withholding where the Immigration Judge relied heavily on general country conditions evidence that was not particular to the respondent and did not show that the respondent could not internally relocate to avoid future torture.

For noncitizens who fear return to their home countries because of gang threats, violence, or other targeted harm, a direct note: this decision raises the burden of proof you must meet to establish CAT protection. General country conditions evidence showing widespread violence or gang activity is no longer sufficient on its own. You must now provide particularized evidence that the specific actors who threatened you remain interested in targeting you, and affirmative evidence that you cannot safely relocate within your home country to avoid future torture. If you are preparing a CAT claim or have one pending, speak with an experienced immigration attorney immediately.

This piece explains what the decision holds, how the Attorney General’s bulk designation of four decisions on October 27, 2026 shapes the broader context, how the particularized-evidence standard operates in gang-threat cases, how internal relocation now enters the CAT analysis, and what practitioners and CAT claimants should do differently now that Matter of K-Y-V-R- is binding precedent. Matter of K-Y-V-R- is one of four precedential immigration decisions in the ongoing series shifting law in the government’s direction that were designated by the Attorney General on October 27, 2026.

What Happened in Matter of K-Y-V-R-

The respondent is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He fears future torture from Salvadoran gang members who attempted to recruit him on multiple occasions from when he was a young child until he left the country at age 17. The respondent testified that gang members threatened him, threw rocks at his home, and on one occasion physically assaulted him at his school because of his refusal to join their gang.

On January 21, 2020, the Immigration Judge granted the respondent withholding of removal under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent had demonstrated a likelihood of future torture upon his return to El Salvador because of his prior refusals to comply with the gang members’ demands. The Immigration Judge further cited to country conditions evidence in the record discussing the prevalence of gang violence in El Salvador.

The Immigration Judge also found that the respondent would face difficulties relocating in El Salvador because of his limited education, lack of job experience, and lack of close family ties remaining in El Salvador. The respondent had not previously attempted to relocate within El Salvador. The respondent testified that while most of his family members reside in the United States, he has uncles who work as police officers in El Salvador.

DHS appealed. The respondent, represented by Alfonso Caprara, Esquire of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (in a case arising in the Third Circuit), opposed the appeal. On September 10, 2026, the Board sustained the appeal, vacated the Immigration Judge’s decision granting CAT protection, and ordered the respondent removed to El Salvador. On October 27, 2026, the Attorney General designated the decision as precedent through AG Order No. 7272-2026.

What the BIA Decided

The Board held that the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent established the requisite likelihood of future torture was speculative and unsupported by the record. The Board identified two primary deficiencies in the Immigration Judge’s analysis.

First, the Board held that the Immigration Judge relied heavily on general country conditions evidence that was not particular to the respondent and did not sufficiently establish that the unknown gang members the respondent fears remain interested in targeting him in the future. The Board cited Hernandez Garmendia v. Attorney General, 28 F.4th 476, 484 (3d Cir. 2022), for the proposition that “the specter of torture must be supported by specific evidence that the individual applicant is more likely than not to be singled out.” The Board also cited its own precedent in Matter of O-Y-A-E-, 29 I&N Dec. 190, 193 (BIA 2025), and Matter of A-A-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 38, 41-42 (BIA 2025).

Second, the Board held that the Immigration Judge’s findings regarding the respondent’s inability to internally relocate were unsupported by the record. The Board invoked 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (2)(ii), as well as Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 28, 32-36 (BIA 2012). The Board held that the respondent had not previously attempted to relocate within El Salvador, that he is now an able-bodied adult, and that the record does not show he would be prevented from relocating away from his hometown and obtaining employment in a different part of El Salvador. The Board specifically noted that the respondent has uncles who work as police officers in El Salvador.

The October 27 AG Designations

The decision in Matter of K-Y-V-R- is one of four Board decisions that the Attorney General designated as precedent in a single administrative sweep on October 27, 2026, through sequential orders bearing numbers 7270-2026, 7271-2026, 7272-2026, and 7273-2026. The four decisions, taken together, represent a coordinated administrative promotion of Board decisions to binding precedent status.

The four designated decisions are Matter of N-L-U-, 30 I&N Dec. 195 (bond and flight-risk analysis); Matter of Yang, 30 I&N Dec. 199 (discretionary LPR cancellation of removal); Matter of K-Y-V-R-, 30 I&N Dec. 203 (Convention Against Torture protection); and Matter of S-N-K-C-, 30 I&N Dec. 207 (asylum credibility).

Several features of the four designations, read together, warrant attention. Each of the four Board decisions reverses or remands an Immigration Judge’s decision granting relief or release. In Matter of N-L-U-, the Board remanded an Immigration Judge’s grant of bond. In Matter of Yang, the Board reversed an Immigration Judge’s grant of LPR cancellation of removal. In Matter of K-Y-V-R-, the Board reversed an Immigration Judge’s grant of CAT withholding. In Matter of S-N-K-C-, the Board reversed an Immigration Judge’s grant of asylum. The Attorney General’s selection of these four decisions for precedent designation effectively consolidates a procedural shift in bond, cancellation, CAT, and asylum practice through a single administrative action.

Each of the four Board decisions was issued in September 2026 (September 9, September 10, September 21, and September 29), approximately four to seven weeks before the October 27, 2026 designation. The time gap between Board decision and Attorney General designation indicates selective administrative choice as to which Board decisions to elevate to precedent status.

Practitioners should understand that this group of four decisions governs multiple areas of removal practice simultaneously. The common thread across all four is a tightening of the burden standards and a corresponding reduction in Immigration Judge discretion to grant relief.

The CAT Framework and the Myrie Two-Step Inquiry

To establish eligibility for CAT protection, a respondent must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in his home country by or with the consent or acquiescence (to include willful blindness) of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)-1208.18(a).

The Third Circuit, the jurisdiction in which Matter of K-Y-V-R- arose, has held that an Immigration Judge must engage in a two-step inquiry when evaluating a CAT claim. The Immigration Judge must first examine what is likely to happen to the respondent if he is removed, and second, determine whether what is likely to happen amounts to the legal definition of torture. Myrie v. Attorney General, 855 F.3d 509, 516 (3d Cir. 2017). The question of what will happen to a respondent is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. The question of whether such harm amounts to torture is a legal determination reviewed de novo.

Matter of K-Y-V-R- operationalizes clear-error review at the Board level by holding that an Immigration Judge’s predictive finding of future torture is clearly erroneous where it rests on generalized country conditions evidence without particularized evidence of continuing threat to the specific respondent.

The decision has particular significance in gang-threat cases, which represent a substantial category of CAT claims. Many respondents who fled gang violence in Central America (El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala) and other countries have presented CAT claims based on prior gang threats combined with country conditions evidence showing widespread gang violence. Matter of K-Y-V-R- raises the bar substantially for these claims by requiring particularized evidence of continuing targeting; the Board will no longer rely on the inference that prior gang threats combined with general country conditions establish a likelihood of future torture.

The Internal Relocation Requirement in the CAT Context

One doctrinal move in Matter of K-Y-V-R- warrants direct attention because it imports a framework familiar from the asylum context into the CAT context in a way that will significantly affect gang-threat cases.

The internal relocation framework is familiar in the asylum context. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) and (b)(2)(ii), an applicant may be ineligible for asylum where it is reasonable to expect internal relocation within the country of nationality. The asylum regulations place the burden on the government to show internal relocation is reasonable in certain circumstances and on the applicant in others.

The CAT regulations do not explicitly require an internal relocation analysis in the same terms. The CAT standard is whether torture is more likely than not in the country of removal; the regulations do not frame the question around a specific location within the country.

Matter of K-Y-V-R- operationalizes an internal relocation analysis in the CAT context by holding that the Immigration Judge’s predictive finding of future torture is unsupported where the record does not show the respondent would be prevented from relocating within the country to avoid the risk. The Board grounds this analysis in Matter of M-Z-M-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 28, 32-36 (BIA 2012). The practical consequence is that CAT claimants must now affirmatively address whether internal relocation is possible, even in cases where the asylum regulations do not place that burden on them.

For practitioners, the implication is that CAT records must include evidence of why internal relocation would not avoid the risk. This may include evidence of nationwide gang networks, evidence of the specific actors’ geographic reach, evidence of the respondent’s specific vulnerabilities (visibility to the targeting group, inability to blend into a new area, dependence on family or community support that is not available elsewhere), and country conditions evidence specific to the regions to which the respondent would relocate.

What This Means for Attorneys Handling CAT Claims

For immigration attorneys handling CAT protection claims, Matter of K-Y-V-R- requires several adjustments to standard practice.

Building the particularized-evidence record has become essential in gang-threat cases. The record must include evidence that the specific actors who threatened the respondent remain interested in targeting him in the future. This may include evidence of recent contact or threats from the same actors, evidence that family members or associates still in the country have been questioned or targeted, evidence of the group’s continuing interest in individuals who refused recruitment, and expert declarations addressing the specific group’s practices with respect to past targets who left the country.

Documenting the respondent’s continuing visibility to the targeting group is now a baseline requirement. Evidence that the gang has looked for the respondent, has contacted family members about him, or has made statements about retaliation if he returns can all help establish continuing targeting. The absence of such evidence (as in Matter of K-Y-V-R- itself, where the respondent did not provide testimony that the gang members had looked for his whereabouts since he left) weighs against the claim.

Addressing internal relocation affirmatively has become part of competent CAT practice. The record should include evidence of why internal relocation would not avoid the risk, evidence of the targeting group’s geographic reach, evidence of the respondent’s specific vulnerabilities to the group, and country conditions evidence specific to the regions where the respondent would relocate. Where the respondent has not previously attempted internal relocation, the record should explain why relocation was not attempted and why it would not be feasible or safe.

Building the record on acquiescence has become more important where country conditions evidence alone will not suffice. The CAT standard requires torture by or with the consent or acquiescence (including willful blindness) of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. Where the targeting is by non-state actors (such as gangs), the record must establish particularized evidence of government acquiescence in the respondent’s specific case or in cases involving the specific targeting group.

Treating general country conditions evidence as supporting evidence has become part of competent practice, because such evidence can no longer carry the central weight of a CAT claim. Country conditions evidence remains relevant and should be included, but it cannot carry the weight it may have carried before. The record must include specific evidence tying the general conditions to the respondent’s particular case.

Preserving the record for federal court review becomes especially important because the Board’s particularized-evidence standard and the imported internal relocation requirement may be challengeable on petition for review in appropriate cases. Every argument available at the agency level should be preserved.

What This Means for Noncitizens Fearing Return to Their Home Countries

For noncitizens who fear return to their home countries because of gang threats, violence, or other targeted harm, and for their families, Matter of K-Y-V-R- raises the burden of proof you must meet.

If you have a pending CAT claim or are preparing one based on gang threats or other targeted harm, consult with an experienced immigration attorney immediately. The evidentiary standard that will be applied has substantially changed, and your case may need to be rebuilt to address the new requirements.

If you were threatened by specific individuals or groups in your home country, work with your attorney to document any evidence of continuing threat. Communications from or about the targeting group, information from family members or friends about recent inquiries or threats, and documentation of specific incidents since you left can all help establish continuing targeting.

If you fled your home country as a minor or young adult, understand that threats experienced in the past without evidence of continuing targeting may be insufficient under Matter of K-Y-V-R-. The record must affirmatively address whether the targeting group remains interested in you.

If you have family members or community ties in different regions of your home country, your case may face arguments that you could have relocated internally. Work with your attorney to document why internal relocation would not avoid the risk, including evidence of the targeting group’s reach, your specific vulnerabilities, and country conditions in the regions where you would relocate.

If you are from a country where gang violence or other widespread harm is common, understand that general country conditions evidence is no longer sufficient on its own. The record must include specific evidence tying the general conditions to your particular case.

What Matter of K-Y-V-R- Does Not Change

The decision narrows CAT protection in gang-threat cases significantly, but its scope has limits worth stating clearly.

The decision does not change the substantive CAT standard. A respondent must still demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in his home country by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)-1208.18(a). What has changed is how the Board will evaluate the evidence supporting the predictive finding of future torture.

The decision does not change the Myrie two-step inquiry in the Third Circuit. Immigration Judges must still examine what is likely to happen to the respondent if removed and determine whether what is likely to happen amounts to the legal definition of torture.

The decision does not foreclose CAT protection. On different records with particularized evidence of continuing threat and documentation of why internal relocation would not avoid the risk, favorable CAT grants remain possible.

The decision does not change the standard of review of factual findings. Predictive factual findings remain subject to clearly erroneous review under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). What has changed is the Board’s application of that standard in CAT cases involving generalized country conditions evidence.

The decision does not foreclose federal court review. A petition for review before the appropriate federal court of appeals remains available after a final Board decision, subject to the usual jurisdictional limits.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CAT protection?

CAT protection refers to withholding of removal or deferral of removal under the regulations implementing the United Nations Convention Against Torture. To qualify, a respondent must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in the country of removal by or with the consent or acquiescence (to include willful blindness) of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The regulations are at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17, and 1208.18(a).

What is the difference between withholding of removal and deferral of removal under CAT?

Withholding of removal under CAT is available to respondents who meet the standard and are not subject to the mandatory bars at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2) (persecutor bar, serious nonpolitical crime, security risk, aggravated felony with 5-year sentence). Deferral of removal under CAT is a lesser form of protection available to respondents who meet the CAT standard but are subject to a mandatory bar. Both forms prevent removal to the country of torture but have different ancillary consequences.

What is particularized evidence?

Particularized evidence refers to evidence specific to the individual applicant that supports the predictive finding of future harm. Under Matter of K-Y-V-R- and the Third Circuit precedent it cites, generalized country conditions evidence showing widespread violence or gang activity is not particularized evidence. Particularized evidence may include specific threats, specific targeting history, evidence of continuing interest by the targeting group, and evidence of specific vulnerabilities that make the respondent likely to be singled out.

Does internal relocation apply to CAT claims?

After Matter of K-Y-V-R-, yes. The Board has operationalized an internal relocation analysis in the CAT context by holding that the Immigration Judge’s predictive finding of future torture is unsupported where the record does not show the respondent would be prevented from relocating within the country to avoid the risk. Practitioners should now address internal relocation affirmatively in CAT records.

Does Matter of K-Y-V-R- apply retroactively?

Precedent decisions of the Board generally apply to all cases pending at the agency level that have not yet reached a final decision. Attorneys with CAT cases pending before Immigration Judges or on appeal before the Board should assume the new standard applies.

What is the Attorney General’s precedent designation power?

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3), the Attorney General may designate any Board decision as precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. The Attorney General exercised this power on October 27, 2026, through sequential orders designating four Board decisions as precedent on the same day.

Where can I find Matter of K-Y-V-R-?

Matter of K-Y-V-R-, 30 I&N Dec. 203 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4268, is a precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals decided by the Board on September 10, 2026, and designated as precedent by the Attorney General on October 27, 2026 through AG Order No. 7272-2026. It is available through the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review website.

Why Novo Legal

Novo Legal Group is a bilingual, community-rooted human rights firm. Every attorney on our team is fluent in English and Spanish. Our litigation team handles CAT protection claims, asylum and withholding of removal, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and petitions for review before federal courts of appeals including the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. We approach CAT cases with a careful record-building strategy that documents particularized evidence of continuing threat, addresses internal relocation affirmatively, builds the acquiescence record with country-specific and respondent-specific evidence, and preserves every available argument for federal court review when the agency denies protection. If you or a family member fears return to a home country because of gang threats or other targeted harm, contact us. We will tell you what we would do given your specific facts.

Related Reading

• Matter of N-L-U- Explained: Pending Asylum Won’t Mitigate Flight Risk
• Matter of Yang Explained: BIA Narrows LPR Cancellation Discretion
• Matter of S-N-K-C- Explained: Late Amendments Can Defeat Credibility
• Matter of B-S-A-N- Explained: BIA Creates a ‘Safe Countries’ List
• Matter of M-R-I- Explained: Advance Parole Can End Asylum Protection