Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073

Castro-Martinez, Mexican national and homosexual, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1995 and later sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
He testified to childhood sexual abuse by private individuals in Mexico, alleging it was linked to his sexual orientation and that reporting would fail due to police corruption and threats.
The IJ denied relief, finding no past persecution or well-founded fear, noting Castro did not show the government was unwilling or unable to protect him.
The BIA affirmed, emphasizing Castro's failure to report the abuse and that the government’s inability or unwillingness to protect him remained unproven.
Castro challenged the BIA’s reasoning, arguing that reporting is not required and that the government’s response could be inferred from country conditions and private abuse.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Castro did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Past persecution by private actors	Castro argues private abuse can constitute persecution if govt cannot or will not protect him.	HOLDER contends no past persecution since abuse was not by state actors and record shows lack of govt failure to protect not proven.	Castro failed to prove government unwillingness or inability; no past persecution.
Well-founded fear of future persecution	Castro contends LGBT status and HIV status subject him to systemic harm in Mexico and lack of protection.	Government reports show improvements and no systematic harm proven; fear not objectively reasonable.	Substantial evidence supports no well-founded fear of future persecution.
HIV treatment access as a protected-ground claim	Castro argues lack of HIV treatment in Mexico due to discrimination against homosexuals.	Record shows generalized economic barriers, not persecution tied to protected status.	No persecution based on HIV status; not established as a protected-ground persecution claim.

Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir.1997) (persecution requires govt or unable/unwilling to control for past persecution)
Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.2004) (reporting to police can show governmental inability to control private perpetrators)
Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.2010) (where persecutor is not a state actor, consider whether report would show lack of protection)
Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.2005) (child victims require assessment from a child's perspective; no obligation to report)
Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2007) ( IJ must assess persecution from the perspective of a child)
Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2006) (may consider not reporting when reporting would be futile or harmful)
Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir.2005) (BIA’s assessment of government protection and persecution harms standard)
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2009) (objective reasonableness in well-founded fear analysis)
Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir.2007) (well-founded fear requires subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear)
Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.2009) (credibility and fear analysis in asylum review)