Omar Castillo v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OMAR JESUS CASTILLO, No. 19-73076
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-268-142
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 10, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
(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 IJ’s 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 Castillo’s proposed social
group is cognizable, Castillo offers no reasoning to challenge the agency’s 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 IJ’s nexus
finding, that finding is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ could conclude
that Castillo’s 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
2
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 Petitioner’s 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 agency’s 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
3
undercuts an alien’s 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 Castillo’s assertions that the IJ and BIA failed to consider the
evidence in its entirety.
PETITION DENIED.
4