Jose Castro-Castro v. Todd Blanche

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1715 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1715

JOSE ANSELMO CASTRO-CASTRO,

Petitioner,

v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: April 29, 2026 Decided: July 17, 2026

Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Petition granted and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Benjamin J. Osorio, Megan B. Herndon, Leah Haynes, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig W. Kuhn, Senior Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1715 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Jose Anselmo Castro-Castro has petitioned for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his applications

for asylum and withholding of removal based his political opinion. We grant the petition

and remand.

To obtain asylum, Castro-Castro must show three things—he suffered past

persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, that persecution is on account

of his political opinion and that persecution is perpetrated by an organization El Salvador’s

government is unable or unwilling to control. Portillo Flores v. Garland, 3 F.4th 615, 626

(4th Cir. 2021) (en banc); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1158(b)(1)(A). 1 Although

an applicant may succeed by showing either past persecution or a well-founded fear of

future persecution, establishing past persecution entitles an applicant to a presumption that

they have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Portillo Flores, 3 F.4th at 629. If the

government demonstrates either that circumstances have changed and an applicant no

longer has a fear of future persecution or that the applicant can avoid future persecution by

relocating elsewhere in their home country and it would be reasonable to do so, then an

immigration judge must deny the applicant’s asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R.

1 Withholding of removal operates similarly. The government “may not remove an alien to a country if the [government] decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s . . . political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). But applicants for withholding of removal must satisfy a higher burden of proof. Morales v. Garland, 51 F.4th 553, 556 (4th Cir. 2022). So, as the immigration judge and the Board found, an applicant who can’t show persecution can’t qualify for withholding of removal. Id. That means Castro-Castro’s withholding claim rises and falls with his asylum claim for the purpose of his petition. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1715 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/17/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A)–(B).

Castro-Castro makes two arguments. First, he contends the Board’s conclusion runs

afoul of our precedent concerning death threats and persecution. In our circuit, persecution

includes “the infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on

account of” political opinion. Portillo Flores, 3 F.4th at 626–27 (emphasis in original)

(quoting Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)). Persecution can “include[]

actions less severe than threats to life or freedom, [but] actions must rise above the level of

mere harassment to constitute persecution.” Id. at 627 (quoting Li, 405 F.3d at 177). A

death threat alone constitutes persecution. Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, 42 F.4th 443, 449

(4th Cir. 2022). Here, the Board assumed Castro-Castro testified credibly and noted

ARENA party members had threatened him with death on four occasions. But the Board

discounted the severity of these threats. This conflicts with our precedent.

Second, Castro-Castro argues the Board failed to consider his youth in

contravention of Portillo Flores. In that case, we held that “[w]here a petitioner is a child

at the time of the alleged persecution, the immigration court must take the child’s age into

account in analyzing past persecution and fear of future persecution for purposes of

asylum.” Portillo Flores, 3 F.4th at 629. Here, the Board dismissed Castro-Castro’s appeal

almost four years after Portillo Flores but still didn’t consider Castro-Castro’s age. This

also conflicts with our precedent.

Because of these two errors, we grant the petition and remand for further

proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1715 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/17/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED