What Is “Torture” Under U.S. Law?
Date of Information: 09/23/2025
Check back soon; we update these materials frequently.
Introduction
For asylum seekers and others seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), understanding what the law recognizes as “torture” is crucial. U.S. courts have developed a body of case law that defines torture narrowly but precisely. This page explains the legal definition, highlights how courts apply it, and catalogs cases where acts were found to constitute torture.
Legal Definition of Torture
Under U.S. regulations implementing CAT, torture means:
An act causing severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Intentionally inflicted.
For an illicit or proscribed purpose (punishment, intimidation, coercion, or discrimination).
By, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official who has custody or physical control of the victim.
Not arising from lawful sanctions.
See Herrow v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2024); Darby v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2021); Ali v. Garland (1st Cir. 2022).
Courts emphasize that torture is a higher bar than persecution, meaning that while an act might qualify as persecution for asylum, it may not qualify as torture under CAT. See Rangel v. Garland (5th Cir. 2024); Davila v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
Key Principles from Case Law
Severity matters: Minor beatings, harassment, or poor prison conditions do not meet the definition unless they result in severe pain and suffering.
Specific intent is required: It is not enough that harm is a foreseeable result of poor conditions; the perpetrator must intend to inflict severe pain or suffering (Escobar v. Garland, 8th Cir. 2022).
Government involvement is required: Torture must involve public officials, either directly or through acquiescence (Portillo-Flores v. Barr, 4th Cir. 2020).
Not lawful sanctions: Harsh legal penalties or punishments under domestic law do not automatically amount to torture, unless they defeat the object and purpose of CAT (Park v. Garland, 9th Cir. 2023)
What Counts as “Torture” (Recognized by Federal Courts)
1. Severe Beatings, Mutilation, and Physical Assaults
Hernandez-Martinez v. Garland (1st Cir. 2023)
Police delivered a man to assailants who beat him unconscious, sliced his waist with a knife, intentionally burned his foot, and left him hospitalized for several days.Rogel Lopez v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021)
Police officers handcuffed and kidnapped a man, beat him, placed a gun in his mouth, fired shots next to his head, then handed him to gang members who continued the abuse.Guerra v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020)
Multiple acts of kidnapping, beatings, and threats considered together (rather than separately) rose to torture.
2. Sexual Violence and Sexualized Torture
Rodriguez de Ayala v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020)
Domestic captivity involving repeated rape, strangulation, and severe physical abuse by a spouse met the torture threshold.Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020)
Rape and sexual assault—especially when inflicted due to sexual orientation—“certainly” rise to the level of torture.Valdizan v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020)
Among various harms, only the sexual abuse a man endured due to his orientation met the definition of torture.
3. Threats of Death, Mock Executions, and Psychological Torture
Rogel Lopez v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021)
Mock execution: gun shoved in mouth and fired beside head, leaving the victim in fear of imminent death.Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson (2d Cir. 2021)
Court emphasized that whether prior acts rise to torture depends on severity, duration, effects, and means—threats of imminent death while in custody may qualify.Guzman Orellana v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2020)
Gang assaults, combined with being held at gunpoint and diagnosed with PTSD, created a likelihood of torture upon return.
4. State Complicity and Handoffs to Non-State Torturers
Rogel Lopez v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021)
Police kidnapped the victim and then handed him over to gang members “as a gift,” directly satisfying CAT’s state-action requirement.Hernandez-Martinez v. Garland (1st Cir. 2023)
Police delivery of detainee to private assailants for beating, stabbing, and burning constituted state acquiescence in torture.
5. Gender-Based and Honor-Related Violence
Kamar v. Sessions (6th Cir. 2017)
Government acquiescence to honor killings, coupled with likely involuntary imprisonment for “protection” that itself caused severe mental suffering, constituted torture.Rodriguez de Ayala v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020)
Gender-based domestic violence including repeated rape and physical assaults, with ineffective state protection, met the standard.
6. Aggregated Severe Abuse Across Episodes
Guerra v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020)
The court stressed that torture analysis must aggregate risks: multiple kidnappings, repeated beatings, and death threats considered together met the definition.
Acts Rejected as Torture Under U.S. Law
1. Minor or Transient Harm
Hernandez-Mendoza v. Garland (2d Cir. 2021)
One assault with no serious or lasting injury; did not meet the severity requirement for torture.La Rosa Hernandez v. Garland (10th Cir. 2021)
Physical assault by police left only a split lip and bruises, no medical treatment required; court found no torture.Ravi v. Barr (2d Cir. 2020)
Two brief attacks (slaps/punches) by rival political party members, lasting only minutes, with no described injuries, were not torture.Sharma v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021)
Harassment, threats, and a single police detainment with a beating and verbal abuse fell below persecution and necessarily below torture.
2. Criminal Violence Without State Nexus
Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland (9th Cir. 2022)
Three robberies and short detainment with temporary bruises, none requiring treatment; lacked severity and government involvement.Orozco-Lopez v. Garland (9th Cir. 2021)
Robbery and kidnapping by private actors, with police refusal to assist, did not rise to torture.Balderrama v. Wilkinson (9th Cir. 2021)
Robbery, attempted robbery, and being shot at in Mexico lacked severity and government acquiescence.Gordon v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2020)
Abduction and machete strike by private actors not tied to state complicity did not meet CAT’s requirements.Pineda-Gonzalez v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2020)
Gang threats and intimidation in El Salvador did not constitute extreme, cruel, and inhuman treatment.
3. Poor Prison or Psychiatric Conditions (Lack of Intent)
Andrade v. Garland (9th Cir. 2024)
Poor mental institution conditions in Mexico were due to lack of resources, not intent to inflict suffering.Escobar v. Garland (8th Cir. 2022)
Harsh psychiatric hospital/prison conditions in Honduras were caused by underfunding, not specific intent.Gonzales v. Garland (8th Cir. 2022)
Squalid detention conditions resulting from neglect and insufficient resources were not torture.Lenor v. U.S. Attorney General (11th Cir. 2020)
Poor conditions at a mental hospital in Sierra Leone stemmed from lack of resources, not intent to torture.Gallina v. Wilkinson (2d Cir. 2021)
Italy’s “41-bis” solitary confinement regime for mafia convicts was severe but intended for security, not to inflict pain; not torture.
4. Lawful Sanctions or Harsh Penalties
Park v. Garland (9th Cir. 2023)
More severe punishments abroad do not automatically constitute torture absent intent to inflict severe pain.Toby v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2018)
Criminalization of same-sex conduct in country of removal, largely unenforced, was not torture on the record.
5. Conscription or Foreseeable Harm Without Specific Intent
Deng Chol v. Garland (8th Cir. 2022)
Military conscription itself was not torture; foreseeably painful duties did not show intent to cause severe suffering.Lasu v. Barr (8th Cir. 2020)
Foreseeable harm from neglectful conditions did not meet CAT’s intent requirement.
6. Speculative or Generalized Risk
Macas-Moreno v. Garland (2d Cir. 2021)
Two past assaults and speculative fear of future police abuse in Ecuador did not compel a finding of torture.Ramírez-Pérez v. Barr (1st Cir. 2019)
Past harm and generalized country violence in Guatemala were insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture.Nasrallah v. U.S. Attorney General (11th Cir. 2019)
Generalized risk of harm in Lebanon did not establish CAT eligibility.Umana v. Sessions (2d Cir. 2017)
Fear of gang violence in El Salvador, without particularized evidence, did not meet torture standard.Ulanov v. Garland (2d Cir. 2021)
Claims of future homelessness and possible gender-based violence in Trinidad & Tobago were too speculative.
7. Lack of Government Acquiescence
Nunez v. Garland (2d Cir. 2021)
Harassment and threats in detention did not rise to torture, especially where officials intervened to stop assaults.Valdizan v. Barr (9th Cir. 2020)
Sexual abuse rose to the level of torture, but only when there was evidence of state acquiescence. Other harms did not.
Why This Matters for Asylum and CAT Claims
Asylum requires a showing of persecution tied to a protected ground.
CAT protection requires proof that the applicant is more likely than not to face torture if returned.
Understanding these distinctions helps survivors and practitioners focus on legally relevant facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the difference between “persecution” and “torture” in U.S. law?
Persecution is the basis for asylum claims; it involves serious harm linked to a protected ground. Torture, by contrast, has a higher threshold under CAT: it must be intentional, severe, by or with state acquiescence, and serve an illicit purpose. Some acts may count as persecution but fall short of torture.
2. Does any severe beating automatically count as torture?
No. U.S. courts look at severity, intent, state involvement, and purpose. A beating must inflict severe pain or suffering, be intentionally applied, and tied to state action or acquiescence to qualify.
3. Can sexual assault or rape qualify as torture?
Yes. Courts have recognized rape, repeated sexual abuse, or genital torture as acts that meet the definition of torture—especially when inflicted because of protected status (e.g., sexual orientation). See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr (9th Cir., 2020).
4. What about criminal violence or assault by private actors (gangs, criminals)?
By itself, private assaults often do not qualify as torture unless there is evidence of state consent, acquiescence, or complicity. Courts will reject claims involving private violence lacking government nexus or severity.
5. Do harsh prison or mental-hospital conditions amount to torture?
Not usually. Courts consistently reject claims based solely on neglect, underfunding, or poor conditions unless there’s proof that officials intended to inflict severe suffering. Many decisions find such conditions fall short of the torture threshold.
6. Can the threat of death or mock execution be torture?
Yes. Threats of imminent death, gun-in-mouth scenarios, or simulated executions, especially in custody, have been held to constitute torture when paired with the required intent and state control.
7. Is speculation or fear of future harm enough?
No. Courts require a showing that torture is “more likely than not” upon return. General or speculative fears without specific evidence or a nexus to past acts will often be rejected.
8. Are foreign laws or punishments automatically torture?
No. Even if a country’s laws are harsh, they do not automatically equate to torture under U.S. law. The key is whether the punishment was intended to inflict severe pain or suffering beyond what is legally authorized, and whether state actors implement or acquiesce in it.
9. What role does state acquiescence play?
A central one. An act cannot be torture under CAT unless a public official (or someone acting with the official’s consent) directly or implicitly permits or participates. Without that nexus, the claim will likely fail.
10. How should I use the case examples on this page?
These examples illustrate how courts have defined torture in real fact patterns. They are not binding in your jurisdiction but can guide your understanding. Always review the full court opinions and consider how your facts compare.
11. What should I do if my client’s experience is similar but not identical to any of these cases?
Focus on the core elements (severity, intent, state nexus, illicit purpose). Use analogy to the cases on this list, document all relevant facts, and if necessary highlight how the differences strengthen, rather than weaken, the claim.
12. If an act is rejected here, can it ever satisfy CAT in the future?
Possibly—if there is additional evidence (e.g., more severe harm, new context, state acquiescence) or a new precedent. The law evolves, so a previously rejected pattern could become cognizable given new facts or legal developments.
Schedule a Consultation
If you believe your case involves torture or you are assisting someone seeking CAT protection, we can help. Our firm has extensive experience with torture-based asylum and CAT claims.
Other Helpful Resources:
See Also:
CIL Guide to the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule
