CASTRO LOPEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-24No. No. 15-71530

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that Castro-Lopez failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

Fabricio Castro-Lopez, a Peruvian citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of his withholding of removal application. Castro-Lopez argued he faced persecution and should not be returned to Peru. The court reviewed the agency's factual findings to determine whether substantial evidence supported the conclusion that he qualified for withholding of removal, which requires showing persecution on account of a protected ground such as political opinion, religion, nationality, race, or membership in a particular social group.

The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that Castro-Lopez had not met his burden of proof. His claims of danger stemmed from general civil strife and violence that affected the population broadly rather than targeting him specifically because of a protected characteristic. Because the court concluded the evidence adequately supported the finding that Castro-Lopez faced the same risks as the general public during the civil conflict, it did not need to address his separate argument about whether he belonged to a recognizable particular social group.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supports a finding that an applicant would be persecuted on account of a protected ground
Whether general civil strife and undifferentiated danger qualify as persecution for withholding of removal purposes
Whether an applicant belongs to a cognizable particular social group

Procedural posture

Castro-Lopez petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's decision denying withholding of removal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Fabricio Castro-Lopez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys conclusion that Castro-Lopez failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that “a general, undifferentiated claim” of civil strife does not render an applicant eligible for asylum). Thus, Castro-Lopezs withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. Because substantial evidence supports the finding that Castro-Lopez and his family were victims of general strife during a civil war and faced the same risk as everyone else in the population, we do not reach his contention that the agency failed to analyze whether he belongs to a cognizable particular social group. “As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).