Armando Soria-Castillejo v. Merrick Garland
20-71089
9th Cir.Oct 15, 2021Background
- Petitioner Armando Soria-Castillejo, a Mexican national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
- An IJ denied all relief, finding Soria-Castillejo failed to show the harm he experienced or fears was on account of a protected ground; the BIA adopted and affirmed that decision.
- The BIA relied on the IJ’s factual findings and Matter of Burbano in adopting the decision; this Court therefore treats the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision for review.
- The agency also denied CAT relief, concluding Soria-Castillejo did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured with governmental consent or acquiescence if returned to Mexico.
- The petition for review raised challenges to the asylum/withholding nexus determination, the CAT analysis, and alleged due-process violations; the Ninth Circuit reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and reviews due-process claims de novo.
- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review and left in place a temporary stay of removal until issuance of the mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether harm/fear was on account of a protected ground for asylum/withholding | Soria-Castillejo contended his harm/fear was motivated by a protected ground | IJ/BIA found no direct or circumstantial evidence of persecutory motive | Denied — substantial evidence supports lack of nexus; asylum and withholding fail |
| Whether CAT relief was warranted (likely torture by/with gov't consent or acquiescence) | Soria-Castillejo asserted a likelihood of torture if returned | Agency found insufficient evidence of government consent or acquiescence | Denied — substantial evidence supports the CAT finding |
| Whether the IJ/BIA violated Soria-Castillejo’s due-process rights | Petitioner claimed procedural unfairness in proceedings | BIA/IJ maintained no prejudicial violation occurred; petitioner must show both violation and prejudice | Denied — no reversible due-process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2020) (substantial-evidence review of agency factual findings)
- Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of due-process claims in immigration proceedings)
- Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (when BIA adopts and affirms IJ decision, the IJ’s decision is treated as the final agency decision)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (applicant must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of persecutory motive)
- Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014) (record may fail to compel conclusion of persecution on account of protected ground)
- Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for assessing likelihood of future torture under CAT)
- Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2014) (to prevail on a due-process claim, petitioner must show both a violation and prejudice)