Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02481/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02481-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elvin Castillo-Gutierrez
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2481

___________________________

Elvin Castillo-Gutierrez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: September 22, 2015

 Filed: January 5, 2016 

____________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Elvin Castillo-Gutierrez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals' (BIA) decision rejecting his claims that he should not be returned to

Nicaragua. Castillo's brother was brutally murdered by local police in Nicaragua.

Castillo, a native Nicaraguan, fears return to Nicaragua would place him in grave

danger from persecution by those responsible for his brother's death. An immigration

Appellate Case: 14-2481 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Entry ID: 4352362 
judge (IJ) ordered his removal, concluding that he failed to satisfy the requirements

for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the convention against

torture (CAT). The BIA agreed, concluding that Castillo's fear of future persecution

was not objectively reasonable. We deny his petition for review.

I. Background

Castillo left Nicaragua and entered this country illegally in 2006. After the

Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings to remove Castillo, he

learned that local police officers killed his brother, Noel, in his hometown. Castillo

does not challenge his removability but seeks relief that would enable him to remain

in the United States. According to Castillo, if he isreturned to Nicaragua, he will seek

justice for his brother. But he fears that this course of action will subject himto police

retaliation.

Castillo's brother, Noel, was beaten to death by local police officers in

Nicaragua. Noel, while intoxicated, attempted to enter a hospital to visit a niece and

was rebuffed by hospital security. Noel tried to force his way into the hospital, and

local police responded. The police officers beat Noel to death and dumped his body

nearby. Miguel, a family friend, witnessed Noel's murder. After Noel died, one of the

officers threatened Miguel that "something might happen to him" if he told anyone

what he saw. Despite the threat, Miguel informed another of Castillo's brothers,

Orlando.

Severalmonths later, Orlando filed a complaintregarding Noel's death with the

police department and wrote to a human rights organization in Nicaragua. Neither

organization has pursued the matter, and the police officersresponsible have not been

prosecuted. To date, Castillo'sfamily has not suffered any retaliation from the police.

Orlando believes that the police are looking for him, but he has been able to avoid

them by living in a rural area a few miles outside of the city.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2481 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Entry ID: 4352362 
After considering hearing testimony and documentary evidence, the IJ denied

Castillo's request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.

The BIA affirmed the IJ's denial of asylum, finding that Castillo failed to

establish that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. The BIA

noted that Castillo did "not identify any objective evidence that private individuals

who investigate the death of relatives are persecuted in Nicaragua." The BIA also

found that "[t]he presence of unharmed family members [and friends] in Nicaragua

significantly undermines [Castillo's] claimed fear." In particular, the BIA noted that

"[o]ne of [Castillo's] remaining brothers has filed a report and contacted a human

rights group" and that "his brother's actions [have not] resulted in any actual harm to

him." Similarly, Miguel, "has not experienced any harassment aside from [the]

unfulfilled threat." Accordingly, the BIA concluded that "the Immigration Judge

properly denied [Castillo's] request for asylum."

The BIA also affirmed the IJ's denial of withholding of removal and

withholding under the CAT. Citing Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 551 (8th Cir.

2008), the BIA held that because Castillo "has not met the lower standard ofshowing

a well-founded fear of future persecution for purposes of asylum, he has necessarily

not established a clear probability of future persecution" for purposes of his request

for withholding of removal. Applying Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572, 576 (8th Cir.

2005), the BIA additionally held that becauseCastillo "has not presented an unrelated

claim to protection under the Convention Against Torture, the Immigration Judge

properly denied that request as well."

The IJ decided this case in Kansas City, Missouri. Accordingly, we have

jurisdiction to review the final order of the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2481 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Entry ID: 4352362 
II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

"We must affirm the agency's decision that [Castillo] is not eligible for asylum

if it is supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record considered as

a whole." See Melecio-Saquil v. Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 983, 986–87 (8th Cir. 2003)

(citation omitted). Castillo thus "bearsthe heavy burden ofshowing that his evidence

'was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear

of persecution.'" See Id. (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84

(1992)).

B. Asylum

To obtain asylum, Castillo must demonstrate either past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality,

political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1229a(c)(4); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481. A fear of

future persecution is "well founded" if it "is both subjectively genuine and objectively

reasonable." Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). "For

an alien's fear of persecution to be objectively reasonable, the fear must have basis

in reality and must be neither irrational nor so speculative or general as to lack

credibility." Perinpanathan v. INS, 310 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation

omitted). Moreover, "[a]n applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution

if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part ofthe applicant's

country of nationality . . . if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to

expect the applicant to do so." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii).

TheBIAdetermined thatCastillo'sfear was not objectively reasonable.Castillo

argues that

a review of the record as a whole reveals that [his] testimony, [which

was] specifically deemed credible [by the IJ], along with the voluminous

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2481 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Entry ID: 4352362 
documentary evidence on country conditions in Nicaragua, more than

demonstrate that his fear [of future persecution] is objectively

reasonable such that no reasonable adjudicator could fail to reach this

conclusion.

He points to three facts, asserting that they undermine the BIA's determination by

showing it is not based on the record as a whole. First, he argues that Miguel, who

witnessed Noel's beating and death, has not been harmed because "other than

privately telling Mr. Castillo'sfamilywhat happened, Miguel has never tried to report

the incident to authorities or anyone else who could take action publicly." In contrast,

Castillo asserts that his safety will be in jeopardy because he feels duty bound to take

public, not private, action against the police. Second, he argues that unlike his brother

Orlando, who has filed a police report and is "the subject of intensive scrutiny by the

police," the "affirmative and wide-ranging steps that Mr. Castillo will take in

Nicaragua will increase his interest to the government and law enforcement many

times over." Finally, he argues that the BIA "did not adequately account for the

extensive evidence of country conditionsin Nicaragua" that has been documented by

the Department of State.

Castillo's evidence and argument fail to state a case "'so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.'"

Melecio-Saquil, 337 F.3d at 986 (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483–84). The

BIA considered Miguel's and Orlando's actions, along with the police response or

nonresponse, and declined to alter its decision. First, Miguel remains unharmed

despite disregarding the police threat and telling Castillo's family what he witnessed.

Similarly, Orlando filed a local police report on the basis of Miguel's eye-witness

statement and has not been harmed. These facts provide substantial evidence to

support the BIA's determination that the threat against Miguel—and by extension

Castillo—is speculative. Second, Castillo's brother lives just three miles from their

hometown, but the "intensive scrutiny" after he filed a police report has not amounted

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-2481 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Entry ID: 4352362 
to actual harm. On this record, the BIA could conclude that Castillo's fear is

speculative, even if he increased his public accusation of the police. This is especially

true in light of his ability to relocate.

Additionally, Castillo's evidence of Nicaraguan human-rights practices do not

compel a contrary conclusion. Castillo's evidence includes nine killings by security

forces and the arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture of four persons near Castillo's

home town in 2011. The relatively limited number and generalized character of these

incidents provide substantial evidence to support the BIA's determination that

Castillo's fear is speculative.

In sum, Castillo fails to establish facts "'so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could fail to find the requisite [objective] fear of persecution'" necessary

for asylum. Id. (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483–84).

C. Withholding of Removal and Withholding Under the CAT

Finally, we have held that "[t]he clear probability standard for withholding of

removal is more onerous than the well-founded fear standard for asylum." Malonga,

546 F.3d at 551 (citation omitted). And relief under the CAT requires alternative

factual grounds when a request for asylum has been found insufficient. Alemu,

403 F.3d at 576. Accordingly, the BIA properly rejected Castillo's claims for

withholding of removal and withholding under the CAT because Castillo failed to

satisfy the legal requirements of asylumand has presented no alternative factual basis

for relief under the CAT.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we deny Castillo's petition for review.

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-2481 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Entry ID: 4352362