Mario Rodriguez Casillas v. Merrick Garland
This text of Mario Rodriguez Casillas v. Merrick Garland (Mario Rodriguez Casillas v. Merrick Garland) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 7 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO RODRIGUEZ CASILLAS, No. 20-72354
Petitioner, Agency No. A209-820-936
v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 2, 2021** Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District Judge.
Mario Rodriguez Casillas, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration
* 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). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Judge’s (IJ) order denying withholding of removal. We review factual findings for
substantial evidence, Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 940 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
grant the petition.
Casillas has been in the United States since 2005 and works in Washington
State as a teacher. He was apprehended in 2017 as part of an investigation into a
different individual. He now seeks withholding of removal on the ground that his
life or freedom would be threatened in Mexico on account of his identity as a gay,
HIV-positive individual.
The IJ found Casillas credible but denied the application for withholding of
removal. In concluding that Casillas did not suffer past persecution, the IJ relied
on its finding that Casillas was never “physically harmed by anyone in Mexico.”1
That finding is directly contradicted by substantial evidence.
Casillas was twice physically harmed. In first grade, a group of boys
“attempted to sexually assault [him]” and “threw [him] to the ground.” See Kaur
v. Wilkinson 986 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A]ttempted rape almost
always constitutes persecution”). In junior high school, a boy called him a gay slur
and pushed him off his bike, causing him to land “on the rear tire and then onto the
ground, causing severe pain to [his] genital area.” In addition to these incidents,
1 Because the BIA explicitly adopted the IJ’s opinion, we treat the IJ’s opinion as the BIA’s. See Alaelua v. INS, 45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1995).
2 which were described in his affidavit, Casillas explicitly testified that he was
attacked. When asked whether he was “threatened or [] physically harmed in
Mexico because of his sexual orientation,” he responded unequivocally: “Yes.
When I was a kid, when I was a child, I suffered from attacks from my neighbors,
my classmates at the school.”
Because any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that
these plain acts of physical violence constitute “physical harm,” the IJ’s finding
that Casillas was not “physically harmed by anyone” is error. See 8 U.S.C.
1252(b)(4)(B) (the agency’s factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”). The error is not
harmless because a finding of persecution would generate a presumption of
eligibility for withholding of removal, and “[p]hysical harm has consistently been
treated as persecution.” Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000); see
also Kaur v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216, 1222 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The hallmarks of
persecutory conduct include, but are not limited to, the violation of bodily integrity
and bodily autonomy.”); Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“[P]hysical violence is persecution”).
We remand to the BIA for the agency to reconsider whether Casillas
suffered past persecution in light of the evidence that he suffered physical harm.
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mario Rodriguez Casillas v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mario-rodriguez-casillas-v-merrick-garland-ca9-2021.