Elston Castillo v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Elston Castillo v. Loretta E. Lynch

608 F. App'x 521

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 2015

Docket13-70160

StatusUnpublished

This text of 608 F. App'x 521 (Elston Castillo v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elston Castillo v. Loretta E. Lynch, 608 F. App'x 521 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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 Ahmed, 504 F.3d at 1201. We reject Castillo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider all relevant evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 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 Ahmed, 504 F.3d at 1201. We reject Castillo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider all relevant evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 F. App'x 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elston-castillo-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack