Elston Castillo v. Loretta E. Lynch , 608 F. App'x 521 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSTON THOMAS CASTILLO, No. 13-70160
Petitioner, Agency No. A037-615-440
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Elston Thomas Castillo, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007).
We deny the petition for review.
Castillo testified that he was beaten and interrogated by police in Belize who
sought information about his and his cousin’s alleged involvement in criminal
activities. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Castillo
did not establish that any past or feared harm was or would be on account of a
protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009)
(protected ground must be ‘one central reason’ for persecution); see also Ayala v.
Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (even if social group is
cognizable, petitioner must show persecution on account of his membership in that
group); see also Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (9th Cir. 2004)
(concluding that heavy-handed tactics used by police during an investigation for
legitimate purposes was not persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus,
Castillo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
because Castillo did not establish that his past harm rose to the level of torture, or
that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Belize. See
2 13-70160
Ahmed, 504 F.3d at 1201. We reject Castillo’s contention that the IJ failed to
consider all relevant evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70160