N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

FULGENC IO ESAU C A STILLO GUAR DAR DO,
Pe t i tione r,

v. M ER R IC K B

. GAR LAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l,
R e sponde nt. No. 17-70802 Age n c y No. A095-811-433

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe t ition for R e v ie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d M a y

20, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia
B e fore : LEE a

n d B R ESS, C irc uit J udge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * ** Distric t Judge

. Fulge nc io Esa

u C a s tillo G u ar d a rdo (“ Gua rda rdo” ), a na t ive a nd c itiz e n of El



# F IL ED

MAY 25 2022
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for publ i cat io n an d is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** T h e p a n e l u n a n i mo u s l y c o n c l u d e s t h i s c as e i s su i t ab l e f o r d eci s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t J udge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Sa lva d or, pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA’ s ” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from t

he Im m igra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ’s ”) d e c ision de ny ing his

a pplic a tion for withholding of re m ova l

. 1 W e h a ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C

. § 1252,

a nd we de ny the pe tition for re vie w. W e re vie w que stions of l a w d e novo. Re tuta v
. H olde r , 5 9 1 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th C ir

. 2 0 10). W e re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, inc luding a dve rse

c re d ibility d e te rm ina tions, for s ubsta ntia l e vide n c e
. Muk

ulumbutu v

. Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th C ir. 2 0 20). Unde r t his sta nda rd, we m ust uphold t h e ag en cy ’ s de te rm i na tion unle ss a ny re a sona ble trie r o f f

act “ ‘would b e c om

pe lle d to c onc lude
to the c ontra

ry ’ ba se d on the e vide nc e in the re c ord.” B r ingas-Rodrigue z v
. S e ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th C i r. 2017) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Zhi v
. Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014)). The ag en cy f

ound tha t the re c ord did not re fle c t tha t E l Sa lva dor p olic e or
gove rnm e nt a

uthoritie s we re unwilling or una ble to he l p G ua

rda rdo a nd dism isse d his

1 Gua rda rdo did not file a n a

pplic a tion for a sy lum

be c a use he m isse d the one year f iling de a d line

. Although he did file a n a pplic a tion for C AT re lie f (whic h t h e a ge nc y de nie d, he wa ive d o n a ppe a l a ny a rgum e nts in support of C AT re lie f by fa iling to ra i se the m
. Se e C

astro-Pe re

z v
. Gonzale

s , 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th C i r. 2005) (holding tha t a n a

p p lic a nt m

ust “ spe c ific a lly a nd distinc t ly ” a rgue a nd ra ise his a rgum e nts or thos e ar g u m e nts a re wa i ve d (quota tion om itte d)). G ua

rda rdo a c knowle dge s tha t the only re lie f he se e ks is tha t “ this c ourt re ve rse t he finding of the B IA tha t [he ] ha s n ot m e t his burde n of p rovi n g his e ligibility for withholding of re m ova l ba se d on his pa st pe rse c ution a t the ha nds of his fa

the r.” - 2 -a

ppe a l. 2 This finding is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e
. To qua lify for withholding of re m ova l, Gua rda rdo m ust sh o w , i n t er alia , tha t the Sa lva dora

n a uthoritie s c a nnot prote c t him

. Ve l asque z-Gaspar v
. Barr , 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th C ir. 2020) (“ [T] o qua lify an al i en for a sy lum [or withholding of

re m ova l], t h e pe rse c ution m ust ha ve b e e n ‘ c om

m i tte d by the gove rnm e n t’ or, a s

re le va nt he r e , ‘ by forc e s tha t t

he gove rnm e nt wa s una

b le or unwilling to c ontrol.’ ” (quota tion o m itte d )). Although Gua rda rdo points to a

buse from his fa the r a nd c ountry

re ports noting tha t c hild a buse is a “ proble m ” in El S al va dor, the re ports a lso de m onstra

te tha t El Sa lva d or is e na c ting polic ie s a nd p rogra m s to a d dre ss this issue

. C onside ring, a s we m

ust, a ll t he e vide n c e in the re c ord, se e Bringas-Rodrigue z , 850 F.3d a t 1069, inc luding the c ountry re ports, we h old tha t th e r ec ord doe s not

c om pe l the c onc l u sion t h at Sa lva dora n a uthoritie s a re unwilling or una b le to prote c t

2 The a g e nc y a lso re lie d on a lte rna tiv e g r ounds to dism iss t he a ppe a l. For e xa m ple , the a ge nc y he ld tha t Gua rda rdo ha d no t de m o nstra

te d tha t he wa s ta

rge te d for h a rm ba se d on a p r o t ect ed ground. On a ppe a l, Gua

rda rdo c onte n ds tha t he is a m e m b e r of a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group (his nuc le a

r fa m ily ) a

n d he w a s ta

rge te d for ha

rm on tha t b a sis. W e do not re a c h the se grounds be c a u se we c onc lude tha t Gua rda rdo’ s fa ilure t o show tha t Sa lva dora n offic ia ls ar e unwilling o r u na ble to he lp him is a suffic i e nt ba sis on whic h to de ny h is pe tition. Se e Ve lasque z -Gaspar v
. Barr , 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th C ir. 2020) (de ny ing a pplic a tion for a sy lum

a nd withholding of re m ova l be c a

use “ the e vide nc e
. . . f al l s short of c om

pe lling the c o nc lusion tha t Gua te m a la

n a uthoritie s would ha ve be e n una ble or unwilling to he l p [the pe titione r] ” ). Gua rda rdo wa ive d a ny a rgum e nt re ga rding whe the r t

he g ov er nm e nt of El Sa lva dor c a n, or is willing to, prote c t him from ga ng v i ole nc e
. Se e C

astro-Pe re

z , 4 09 F.3d a t 1072. - 3 -Gua

rda rdo from his fa the r’ s a b use
. Se e Ve lasque

z-Gaspar , 976 F.3d a t 1 0 6 4- 6 5 (de n y i ng pe tit ion for re vie w whe re c ountry re ports showe d Gua te m a la wa s working— a lbe it une ve n ly

— to c om ba t viole nc e a ga inst wom e n, c rim ina liz e d ra pe a n d dom e stic a

buse , a nd offe re d she lte rs for wom e n); C astro-Pe re

z v
. Gonzale

s , 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th C ir. 2005) (de ny ing pe tition for re v ie w— de s pite a pplican t ’s
te stim ony t

ha t she wa s a fra id to re port to the polic e be c a use he r fa the r m a y h a ve be a te n he r—

be c a u se c ountry re ports s howe d t ha t Hondura s trie d to s tre ngthe n dom e stic violen ce l aws a nd ha d c rim ina liz e d ra pe ). T his i s pa

rtic u la rly so whe n Gua rda rdo ne ve r re porte d the a buse to the p o li ce. Hussain v
. Rose n , 985 F.3d 634,
648 (9th C i r. 2021) (“ H ussa in ne ve r c la im e d tha t he re porte d the 2007 or 2012 a tta c ks
to la w e nforc e m e nt a

u t horitie s or e ve r sought polic e a ssista nc e , whic h we ba la

nc e in

our a na ly sis of the B IA’ s de te rm ina tion.” ).
PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

.

- 4 -