Jhonatan Reyes-Castillo v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JHONATAN REYES-CASTILLO, No. 19-70021
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-917-843
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jhonatan Reyes-Castillo petitions for review of an order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a denial of his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary.
*
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).
I
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Castillo
did not show that he was or will be persecuted based on a political opinion. See 8
U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). Reyes-Castillo does not argue that he
was persecuted based on any actual political opinion that he held, so the question is
whether the record compels the conclusion that his alleged persecutors “attributed
a political opinion” to Reyes-Castillo and “acted upon the attribution.” Cruz-
Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The record shows no imputed political opinion—only that the Sendero
Luminoso attackers called Reyes-Castillo a “snitch” or “informant” and that he
encountered a dead dog with a note that read, “You rat informant, you’re going to
die.” Reyes-Castillo suggests that the Sendero Luminoso likely researched his
voting history and inferred from the dates on which he voted that he supported pro-
government parties, but such speculative leaps are not compelled by the record.
Further, facts about the Sendero Luminoso’s overarching political goals, including
the objective evidence of country conditions, are “irrelevant” because our focus is
“the victim’s political opinion, not the persecutor’s.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481–82 (1992).
As in Cruz-Navarro where the petitioner, an active-duty police officer, was
2
called “policeman” and “informer” by Sendero Luminoso assailants, the evidence
here does not “impl[y] that the guerillas believed [Reyes-Castillo] to hold political
beliefs contrary to their own, much less that they attacked him because of such
beliefs.” Cruz-Navarro, 232 F.3d. at 1030. To “regard[] [Reyes-Castillo] as an
informant . . . is not akin to imputing a political belief to him.” Id.; see also Sanjaa
v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1163–65 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding no imputed political
opinion where a police officer was beaten and threatened because of his role in a
drug investigation).
II
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Castillo
did not show that he was or will be persecuted based on his membership in a
particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). To be
cognizable, a proposed group must be “defined with particularity” and “socially
distinct within the society in question.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237
(B.I.A. 2014)).
On the record here, including the objective-country-conditions evidence,
Reyes-Castillo has not shown his proposed group consisting of informants to be
particular or distinct. First, the group’s membership is amorphous and
unascertainable since there need not be record documentation of who has informed
3
to the government. Cf. Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc) (“those who had testified . . . in open court” could be “easily
verified—and thus delimited”) (emphasis omitted). Second, the group is not
recognized by society where Reyes-Castillo did not show evidence that he was
called to testify, that he spoke out publicly, or that Peruvian society affords special
legal protection to informants. See Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243–44 (“those
who just report criminal activity of gangs to police” was not shown to be socially
distinct); see also Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 980–82 (9th Cir. 2020).
III
Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Reyes-
Castillo failed to show a nexus to a protected ground, his asylum and withholding
claims fail and we need not address other issues related to these claims. See Singh
v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[a] finding of no nexus” defeats both
asylum and withholding claims).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4