Castro Rubio v. Bondi, 24-4421

Maria Camila Castro-Rubio and her minor daughter, both Colombian nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after entering the U.S. illegally in 2022.
Petitioners claimed fear of persecution in Colombia due to their relationship with Maria’s partner, Juan Pablo Porras-Lengurque, who allegedly faced threats from armed groups (“la guerrilla”).
The immigration judge (IJ) denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal, finding relocation within Colombia to be safe and reasonable.
Petitioners argued this finding misrepresented evidence of threats in places where they had previously relocated, and failed to analyze if they could safely live in Colombia without Porras.
The BIA also rejected their claim for CAT protection, finding insufficient evidence the Colombian government would consent or acquiesce to torture.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision, focusing on whether the record was properly considered regarding internal relocation and CAT requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of internal relocation analysis for asylum/withholding	The agency misstated the record on threats in Cucuta and failed to assess if Petitioners could relocate without Porras.	Petitioners can safely and reasonably relocate within Colombia, including Cucuta or other locations.	The agency erred by misstating the record and failing to consider all relevant individualized relocation factors; remand required.
Eligibility for CAT protection	Petitioners face likely torture by armed groups, and Colombian authorities fail to prevent or respond effectively.	The Colombian government investigates and prosecutes armed group abuses; Petitioners haven't shown acquiescence to torture.	Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT claim; government does not acquiesce to torture.

Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824 (9th Cir. 2022) (Review is limited to the BIA’s decision unless IJ opinion expressly adopted.)
Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2021) (Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.)
Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2019) (Relocation analysis must be reasoned and individualized.)
Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (Failure to address dispositive evidence is error.)
Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA decision cannot stand if it misstates the record or omits highly probative evidence.)
Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (No government acquiescence where authorities combat illegal activity.)