Castaneda-Castillo v. Holder
638 F.3d 354
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Castañeda-Castillo, a Peruvian former military officer, seeks asylum and withholding of removal based on persecution connected to the Accomarca massacre.
- He was not present in the village during the killings but faced threats and violence linked to his role in Accomarca and his public association with the incident.
- The BIA initially denied asylum; on remand, the IJ again denied, but the BIA reversed on persecution grounds while upholding lack of nexus and future fear.
- The First Circuit previously held the persecutor bar requires knowledge of facilitating persecution and remanded for credibility and factual development; this opinion addresses that framework on remand.
- Extradition proceedings between the United States and Peru were ongoing, prompting the government to seek abeyance of merits while extradition mattered, which the court rejects in favor of merits adjudication.
- The court vacates the BIA denial and remands to decide whether a cognizable social group exists and, if so, whether a presumption of well-founded fear applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'Peruvian military officers associated with Accomarca' is a cognizable social group | Castañeda argues group is cognizable and persecution targeted by Shining Path due to group status. | BIA concluded the group was not adequately shown and that persecution rested on revenge rather than group membership. | Remand to decide cognizability; de novo review on ultimate group determination. |
| Whether Fuentes imposes a per se rule barring asylum claims of military officers | Fuentes does not establish a per se bar against asylum claims for officers. | Fuentes supports a narrow view that job-related dangers are not per se persecution, implying limits on such claims. | Fuentes not read as a per se rule; continued consideration appropriate on remand. |
| If a cognizable social group is found, whether a presumption of well-founded fear applies | Recognition of a cognizable group entitles a presumption shifting burden to the government. | Without a proven past persecution on protected grounds, fear must be shown as well-founded with rebuttal required. | Remand to determine eligibility and whether a presumption attaches. |
| Whether merits adjudication should be postponed pending extradition proceedings | Merits should be decided now to avoid further delay and prejudice to derivative applicants. | Extradition considerations could justify holding merits in abeyance. | Foreign policy considerations do not justify delaying merits; retain jurisdiction and remand for merits review. |
| Whether the BIA's treatment of past persecution and nexus to a protected ground was correct | BIA erred in ruling no nexus and in treating persecution as revenge rather than group-based. | BIA findings supported by record weights and rationale. | Vacate BIA's denial; remand for reconsideration of nexus in light of cognizable social group determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castañeda-Castillo v. Gonzáles, 464 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2006) (persecutor bar requires knowledge of aiding persecution)
- Castañeda-Castillo v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2007) (en banc; remanded for credibility and persecutor-bar analysis)
- Halo v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence review; asylum framework)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (well-founded fear requires subjective and objective elements)
- Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2008) (REAL ID preclusion context; context for social-group analysis)
- Mediouni v. INS, 314 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2002) (well-founded fear evaluation and nexus considerations)
- Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006) (limited remand and jurisprudence on asylum review)