HUGO CASTILLO-MANCIA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-72753 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 5 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO ERNESTO CASTILLO-MANCIA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72753 Agency No. A206-808-606 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 6, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,*** District Judge. Hugo Ernesto Castillo-Mancia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing an appeal * 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 Louis Guirola, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny Castillo-Mancia’s petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the determinations of the IJ and BIA that Castillo-Mancia failed to establish that any harm he experienced in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition, substantial evidence supports the finding that CastilloMancia failed to demonstrate that he faces future harm in El Salvador. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). The application for asylum and withholding of removal was therefore appropriately denied. 2. Castillo-Mancia has not demonstrated that he would more likely than not suffer torture upon return to El Salvador. The agency’s decision that CastilloMancia failed to show that he is entitled to CAT protection is therefore also supported by substantial evidence. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2
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.
