ALMA CASTILLO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-70130 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK ALMA STEFANY CASTILLO, No. 20-70130 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Agency No. A205-078-318 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 17, 2022** San Jose, California Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Alma Stefany Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, timely petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision * 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). denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision that had found Petitioner credible but concluded that she had not suffered harm amounting to past persecution in El Salvador and, further, that she had not shown that any past harm or threats of future harm were on account of a protected ground. Those findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (determining that the threats the petitioner received did not rise to the level of persecution where the petitioner suffered no physical harm and received vague, anonymous threats). At most the evidence established Petitioner’s fear of gang violence, which we have held does not relate to or constitute a protected ground. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence also supports the denial of protection under CAT. Although we recognize the level of violence that exists in El Salvador, the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner would be targeted for torture if returned to El Salvador. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2021). Petitioner’s Motion to Remand, Docket No. 46, is denied. 2 PETITION DENIED. 3

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.