Court Opinion

ID: 9964692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:01:26.154018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:39.285953
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LETICIA GREGORIA CASTRO-PEREZ,                  No. 22-949
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A202-059-321
 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent,

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                       Argued and Submitted April 3, 2024
                           San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH, HURWITZ, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Leticia Gregoria Castro-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

her appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we

recite them only as necessary. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we

grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

      1. The IJ found that Castro-Perez established past persecution on account of

her membership in a particular social group but denied her applications for asylum

and withholding of removal because Castro-Perez failed to demonstrate the

government of Guatemala “was unable or unwilling to control” her persecutor.

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The

IJ explained that Guatemalan authorities helped Castro-Perez obtain a restraining

order against her abuser and informed her about laws protecting women. Although

Castro-Perez testified that her abuser continued to pursue, contact, and threaten her

in violation of the order, she testified before the IJ that she did not report these

violations to the police in Guatemala City before fleeing to San Marcos. The IJ

found that Castro-Perez never “contacted police or other government officials to

notify them,” which precluded Guatemalan officials from responding to those

violations. Based on that purported failure to report, the IJ concluded that Castro-

Perez did not meet her burden under the “unable or unwilling” standard. On

appeal, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, repeating that Castro-Perez

“did not subsequently report [her abuser’s] violations of the order.”

       “[O]ur law is clear that the agency, and we, upon review, must examine all

                                          2
the evidence in the record that bears on the question of whether the government is

unable or unwilling to control a private persecutor.” Id. at 1069. The record

contains specific testimony that Castro-Perez reported violations of the restraining

order to government officials in Guatemala. Castro-Perez stated multiple times in

her initial interviews with an asylum officer, and in her original asylum

application, that she had reported violations of the restraining order to the

Guatemalan police in San Marcos. This evidence is “highly probative” of whether

the Guatemalan government was unwilling to control Castro-Perez’s persecutor

and contradicts the conclusions of the agency. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th

626, 638–39 (9th Cir. 2022). The BIA failed to mention this evidence and

misstated the record, indicating that it did “not consider all the evidence before it.”

Id. at 632. Therefore, “its ‘decision cannot stand.’” Id. at 638 (quoting Cole v.

Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011)).

      2. For the same reason, the agency erred in denying CAT protection.

Government acquiescence is present where officials “have awareness of the

activity” and “breach their legal responsibility to intervene . . . because they are

unable or unwilling to oppose it.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034

(9th Cir. 2014). Evidence that Castro-Perez reported violations of the restraining

order is probative to this inquiry, but—as in the asylum and withholding context—

the agency failed to discuss it. This omission warrants remand. See Diaz-Reynoso

                                         3
v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1089–90 (9th Cir. 2020); see also 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(3).

      3. We do not reach the arguments raised by Castro-Perez contending that

certain findings or conclusions are compelled by the record. On remand, the

agency must consider all the evidence pertinent to Castro-Perez’s applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, including the

evidence discussed above.

      PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED.1

1
 The motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief submitted by the Center for
Gender and Refugee Studies, Dkt. 29, is GRANTED.

                                       4