Case Summary
**Case Summary: Rey Jimenez-Juarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.**
**Docket Number:** 7846449
**Court:** [Specify Court, e.g., U.S. Court of Appeals]
**Date:** [Specify Date of Decision]
**Parties:**
- **Petitioner:** Rey Jimenez-Juarez
- **Respondent:** Eric Holder, Jr., Attorney General
**Background:**
Rey Jimenez-Juarez, a native of Mexico, sought relief from removal proceedings initiated by the United States government. His case was rooted in his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that if returned to Mexico, he would face a substantial risk of torture due to his political beliefs and affiliation.
**Issues:**
The central issues in the case revolved around whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in denying Jimenez-Juarez's application for deferral of removal and whether he had sufficiently demonstrated the likelihood of being tortured in his home country.
**Legal Standard:**
To be eligible for protection under CAT, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if returned to the country of origin. The applicant must provide evidence of past persecution and/or a reasonable likelihood of future harm.
**Decision:**
The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge's (IJ) ruling, determining that Jimenez-Juarez failed to meet the burden of proof required under CAT. The BIA found that the evidence presented did not convincingly demonstrate that he would face torture if returned to Mexico.
**Outcome:**
Jimenez-Juarez's petition for review was denied. The court affirmed the BIA's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding that he did not meet the necessary criteria for relief under CAT.
**Conclusion:**
The case of Rey Jimenez-Juarez v. Eric Holder, Jr. serves as an important reference regarding the standards for seeking deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, highlighting the burden of proof on the applicant to establish a reasonable likelihood of suffering torture upon return to their home country. The court’s decision underscored the necessity for compelling evidence to succeed in such claims.
**Note:**
Please consult the official court records or databases for further details, including specific dates, judicial opinions, and potential dissenting opinions or concurrences if applicable.