The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Hayatullah Zahid, an Afghan man seeking asylum and protection from torture under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court's decision, issued on October 20, 2026, denies Zahid's petitions for review of two decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). This ruling is significant as it impacts Zahid's future safety and legal status in the United States, as well as sets a precedent regarding the standards for CAT relief for similar cases.
Zahid, a native of Afghanistan, worked for the Ministry of Education before the Taliban regained control of the country in 2021. Following the takeover, he faced pressure from Taliban officials to provide information about female students and their families. After attending a protest against the Taliban's closure of girls' schools, Zahid was arrested, beaten, and accused of being a U.S. spy. He fled Afghanistan in October 2023 and entered the United States in February 2024. Upon his arrival, he was charged with being inadmissible due to lack of valid entry documents.
During his initial hearings, Zahid admitted to unlawful entry and expressed his intention to apply for asylum. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, arguing that he faced a credible threat of torture if returned to Afghanistan. However, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found that while Zahid had experienced past persecution, he did not meet the higher burden of proof required for CAT protection. The IJ concluded that Zahid had not demonstrated that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return.
The BIA upheld the IJ's decision, dismissing Zahid's appeal and denying his request to remand the case for consideration of new evidence. Zahid's new evidence included alleged Taliban summonses and statements from family and community members. However, the BIA found that the evidence did not compel a different conclusion regarding his eligibility for CAT protection.
The court ruled that Zahid's claims did not meet the necessary standard for CAT relief, stating, "The evidence must be 'so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.'" The judges emphasized that the evidence Zahid provided, while indicative of a risk to some individuals, did not specifically demonstrate that he would be tortured if returned to Afghanistan.
In reviewing the BIA's decisions, the Fifth Circuit applied a substantial-evidence standard, meaning that the court would only reverse the BIA's findings if the evidence overwhelmingly supported a different conclusion. The court found that Zahid's generalized evidence of country conditions in Afghanistan and his past experiences did not sufficiently establish a likelihood of future torture.
The ruling has implications for Zahid's future, as he remains in the United States without the protection of asylum or CAT relief. It underscores the challenges faced by individuals seeking asylum based on fears of torture, particularly when their claims rely heavily on generalized country conditions rather than specific threats against them.
Looking ahead, Zahid may have limited options for appeal. The ruling from the Fifth Circuit is a significant legal barrier to his claims for protection. There may be related cases pending that could further clarify the standards for CAT relief, but for now, Zahid's future remains uncertain.