Christian Caranto v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 15-73258
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2025

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

CHRISTIAN KIM CARANTO, No. 15-73258 Agency No. Petitioner, A095-684-210 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 1, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD, BEA and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Christian Kim Caranto (“Caranto”) petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his applications for

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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).

1 (“CAT”). The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not recount them here.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

Caranto’s evidence does not compel us to conclude he qualifies for

withholding of removal. A petitioner may qualify for withholding of removal by

showing he has been persecuted in the past or “more likely than not” will be

persecuted in the future based on his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i), (b)(2). “For withholding of removal, an applicant must show that

a protected ground would be ‘a reason’ for the persecution, a ‘less demanding

standard’ than the ‘one central reason’ standard for asylum.” Reyes-Corado v.

Garland, 76 F.4th 1256, 1265 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,

846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017)). The agent of persecution must be a government

official or someone “the government is unable or unwilling to control.” Reyes-Reyes

v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 782, 788 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). We will only reverse

the BIA where “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to” draw an opposite

conclusion. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en

banc) (citation omitted).

Even if we assume Caranto’s proposed social group of past and current Alpha

Phi Omega fraternity members were a particular social group, Caranto’s application

for withholding of removal still fails. First, Caranto does not connect his past or

2 feared future harms to government conduct. Caranto did not go to the police after

either of the two incidents he cites, and asserts only that certain national, provincial,

and local government officials are corrupt. That does not establish that government

officials are “unable or unwilling to control” Tau Gamma Phi members’ potential

violence. Reyes-Reyes, 384 F.3d at 788. Second, Caranto has not shown that future

persecution is “more likely than not” to occur. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). Caranto

has not been in the Philippines for 20 years. For his fears to be realized, a “series of

worst-case scenarios” would all have to occur, which is insufficient under the “more

likely than not” standard. Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir.

2013).

Caranto’s evidence does not compel us to conclude he qualifies for protection

under the CAT. A petitioner is eligible for protection under the CAT if they establish

“that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the

proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Torture in the CAT context

refers to the infliction of extreme pain or suffering, not “lesser forms of cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143,

1147 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(2)). The torture must be inflicted

by government officials acting in their official capacity or by others “with the

consent or acquiescence” of government officials. De Leon Lopez v. Garland, 51

F.4th 992, 1004 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)).

3 There is no evidence Caranto has been tortured by or with the acquiescence

of government officials in the past or will be tortured in the future. Caranto’s past

harms amount to a Tau Gamma Phi member allegedly throwing a “pillbox”

explosive device at him and a random stabbing while riding on public transportation.

Neither constitutes “torture” under the CAT, and neither was committed by or with

the acquiescence of a government official. There is insufficient evidence that

Caranto is likely to be tortured if returned to the Philippines.

PETITION DENIED.