Bringas-Rodriguez v. Lynch, No. 13-72682 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a citizen of Mexico and a gay man, challenged the BIA's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and denying his motion to remand to the IJ in light of his recent HIV diagnosis. The court concluded that, in light of Castro-Martinez v. Holder, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and he is thus ineligible for asylum. The court's holding in Castro-Martinez forecloses petitioner's “pattern or practice of persecution” argument, and he failed to exhaust his argument that he will be “singled out” as a member of a “disfavored group.” Because petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish eligibility for asylum, he also fails the higher burden required to obtain withholding of removal. And because substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, the court denied the petition with respect to petitioner's claim under the CAT. Petitioner failed to establish a likelihood of torture: Conditions in Mexico are insufficiently dangerous for gay people to constitute a likelihood of government-initiated or -sanctioned torture. Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that petitioner’s HIV diagnosis, standing alone, does not require a remand to the IJ.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture to a citizen of Mexico who sought relief based on his sexual orientation and HIV-positive status. Relying on Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011), the panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Bringas-Rodriguez failed to establish that the Mexican government was unwilling or unable to protect him, where he did not report the abuse he suffered to authorities, and his evidence, including hearsay testimony and country reports, was insufficient to establish that doing so would have been futile. The panel held that Bringas-Rodriguez failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of gay men in Mexico. The panel also held that Bringas-Rodriguez’s CAT claim failed because he did not show that he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Mexican government if he is removed to Mexico. The panel held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Bringas-Rodriguez’s motion to remand based on his recent HIV diagnosis. BRINGAS-RODRIGUEZ V. LYNCH 3 Dissenting, Judge W. Fletcher wrote that he has growing doubts about this court’s decision in Castro-Martinez, but even applying Castro-Martinez to the facts of this case, Bringas-Rodriguez submitted evidence sufficient to show that the Mexican government was unwilling or unable to protect him from abuse.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 14, 2016.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 8, 2017.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.