Vachiraporn Vivorakit v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner, a native citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioner’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.

We find that the BIA’s use of the “more likely than not” and “clear probability” standards was not in error. In the context of a withholding of removal hearing, “clear probability” and “more likely than not” are equivalent. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 , 424 n. 19, 104 S.Ct. 2489 , 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984) (noting that “clear probability” is interchangeable with “likely” and does not indicate that the BIA was using a “clear and convincing” standard); see also, Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that “clear probability” means “it is ‘more likely than not’ ”) (citing INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 429 , 107 S.Ct. 1207 , 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)).

We also conclude that the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if…