CASTILLO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-13No. No. 19-73076

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dismissing Castillo's appeal is affirmed.

Omar Jesus Castillo, a Mexican national, sought review of a decision denying his claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration authorities concluded that Castillo failed to establish the required connection between the harm he experienced and his claimed social group—family association with a media member. Additionally, authorities determined that past harm did not establish a likelihood of future torture if he returned to Mexico, particularly given his continued residence in the area without incident for months after the alleged police attack and the absence of any subsequent harm to family members remaining in Mexico over a five-year period.

The court applied the substantial evidence standard of review, which requires that the record must clearly support a contrary conclusion to reverse the agency decision. Finding no such compelling evidence, the court upheld the denial of both requested forms of relief.

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

Key issues

Whether petitioner established a nexus between persecution and membership in a cognizable particular social group
Whether past torture establishes a likelihood of future torture under CAT standards
Whether evidence of continued residence without incident and absence of harm to family members undermines future persecution claims

Procedural posture

Castillo petitioned for review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Omar Jesus Castillo, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJs determination, which the BIA adopted, that Castillo failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and his proposed social group of a “family association to a member of the media.” See Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 881–82 (9th Cir. 2021) (nexus requirement for withholding of removal). Even assuming Castillos proposed social group is cognizable, Castillo offers no reasoning to challenge the agencys nexus finding. “Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.” Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted).

But even if Castillo did adequately preserve a challenge to the IJs nexus finding, that finding is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ could conclude that Castillos family membership was not “a reason” for his harm. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017). Castillo testified that the police harmed him because they thought he knew where his aunt was located. Castillo also testified that he did not know why the police were looking for his aunt. The record therefore does not compel the conclusion that Castillo has shown a likelihood of future persecution on account of his membership in his proposed particular social group. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Assuming that Petitioners family is ‘a particular social group’ within the meaning of the statute, he has not established that he was persecuted ‘on account of’ his family membership.”).

2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. To obtain CAT relief, Castillo must prove that government officials or private actors with government acquiescence would “more likely than not” torture him after returning to Mexico. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted).

Although the IJ assumed that the police tortured Castillo, that does not compel a finding he will be tortured in the future. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 802 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he showing of past torture does not give rise to a regulatory presumption of fear of future torture.”). Castillo continued to live in the area for a few months afterward without incident. Nor has Castillo has pointed to any evidence suggesting that Mexican officials have a continuing interest in him or his aunt. In the five years between the incident and the agencys review, no family members living in Mexico were harmed. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[L]ack of harm to similarly situated family members ․ generally undercuts an aliens fear of harm.”). The record thus does not compel the conclusion that Castillo will likely be tortured if returned to Mexico.

Because the BIA reasonably concluded that Castillo had not established eligibility for CAT relief, any error by the IJ in stating that Castillo bore the burden to show he could not safely relocate within Mexico is immaterial. Finally, the record does not support Castillos assertions that the IJ and BIA failed to consider the evidence in its entirety.

PETITION DENIED.