When everything else is gone, protection under the Convention Against Torture is sometimes the last thing standing between a person and a country that wants to hurt them. It can stop a deportation even when asylum is barred. It is powerful, and it is also fragile in a way that has nothing to do with how real the danger is. A 2026 decision shows exactly how a strong torture claim can die on procedure alone, and why the way you fight it matters as much as the facts behind it.
What the court did in Hayles
On June 22, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided Hayles v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 24-10516. A man had sought protection under the Convention Against Torture, telling an asylum officer and then an immigration judge that he feared he would be tortured if he was sent back. The immigration judge denied the claim, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that denial. He asked the federal court to review it.
The court never reached the question of whether he would be tortured. Instead, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's CAT decision, because he was not at the same time seeking review of a final order of removal. Without that, the court concluded, it had no power to examine the CAT ruling, and it dismissed his petition. Read that again, because it is the whole point. His case ended not because a judge decided he was safe, but because of a rule about what the court was allowed to look at.
Why this is the danger no one warns you about
Most people, understandably, focus all their energy on the substance. Is the danger real, can we prove it, what evidence do we have. That work is essential. But Hayles is a reminder that the substance never gets weighed if the case is in the wrong procedural posture when it reaches the court.
Immigration appeals run on strict and unforgiving rules. There are tight deadlines, usually just 30 days to file a petition for review after a final decision. There is a requirement to raise and preserve every argument before the agency first, known as exhaustion, so that an issue you never spelled out below can be treated as forfeited above. And there are rules, like the one in Hayles, about which decisions a court even has the power to review and in what combination. Any one of these can quietly end a case.
The lesson is not despair, it is preparation
We want to be careful here, because the point of this is not to frighten anyone whose life may depend on a torture claim. The point is the opposite. These traps are known. They are mapped. And they are almost entirely avoidable when the case is handled by someone who sees them coming.
Protecting a CAT case means thinking about the appeal from the very beginning, not after something has gone wrong. It means making sure every issue is clearly raised and preserved at the immigration judge stage and again before the Board, so nothing is lost to exhaustion. It means filing the petition for review correctly and on time, down to the deadline. And it means framing the appeal in a posture the court actually has authority to review, so your case is not dismissed before the danger is ever heard. None of that is glamorous. All of it is the difference between protection and removal.
If your safety depends on this, do not navigate it alone
A torture claim is not the place to learn the rules as you go. The stakes are as high as they come, and as Hayles shows, the procedural path is narrow and easy to step off without realizing it. The people who keep these cases alive are the ones who treat the procedure with the same seriousness as the facts.
If you or someone you love is fighting deportation to a country where torture is a real fear, talk to us early, ideally before the case leaves the immigration judge. We handle these appeals, we know where the jurisdictional and deadline traps lie, and we build the record so the merits actually get heard. The consultation is free, and we will work through it in English, Spanish, French, Creole, or Mandarin. When the danger is this serious, the last thing that should defeat you is a procedural rule no one told you about.
ලියන ලද්දේ
Joshua Bardavid
I am the principal attorney with years of experience in immigration practice. I have successfully litigated hundreds of immigration cases and have been lead counsel in several precedent-setting appeals. Prior to working as an immigration attorney, I worked as a consultant to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I was editor-in-chief of New York International Law Review and graduated cum laude from St. John's University School of Law. I have lived in Washington D.C., West Africa, and the Middle East. I currently live in New York City. In my spare time, I enjoy travel and adventure, play soccer, and suffer as a Mets fan. I am a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).