Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jose Isabel CASTILLO-RODAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM *
Jose Isabel Castillo-Rodas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Castillo-Rodas failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to El Salvador. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution in Ukraine too speculative). Contrary to Castillo-Rodas’s contentions, the BIA did not err in declining to reach his arguments as to nexus or relocation. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Castillo-Rodas’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Castillo-Rodas failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not compel conclusion that petitioner established the state action necessary for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-73072
Decided: March 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)