David Castillo Romero v. Attorney General United States, 972 F.3d 334

Romero, a Mexican national, was removed in 2011 after attempting entry with a fraudulent U.S. passport; he later reentered illegally in 2013 and again in 2019 and had his prior removal order reinstated under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
After expressing fear of return, Romero received a "reasonable fear" interview and claimed fear of violence from Arturo Valencia, an alleged New Generation Cartel member who threatened him by phone and whose associates shot at Romero’s house in Mexico; Romero never reported threats to police and presented no evidence of government involvement.
The asylum officer found Romero did not show a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture and that he lacked a nexus to a protected ground; the supervisory officer approved the determination.
Romero appealed to an IJ, who conducted an expeditious review, concurred with the asylum officer, and denied relief—finding no nexus to a protected ground for withholding and insufficient evidence of government consent or acquiescence for CAT relief.
Romero petitioned for review in the Third Circuit, which considered the appropriate standard of review and whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard of review for an IJ's negative reasonable-fear determination	Romero implicitly urged meaningful review (substantial evidence)	Gov't urged highly deferential "facially legitimate and bona fide reason" standard	Court applied substantial evidence review, rejecting the "facially legitimate" standard for reasonable-fear denials
Whether Romero established a reasonable fear of persecution (nexus to protected ground)	Romero argued cartel threats/violence put him at risk sufficient for withholding	Gov't argued threats were personal/criminal, not on account of protected ground	Substantial evidence supports IJ: no nexus to protected ground; denial affirmed
Whether Romero established a reasonable fear of torture under CAT (government acquiescence)	Romero argued Mexican government effectively allows cartel violence and would acquiesce	Gov't argued no evidence of official acquiescence and Mexico is taking steps to address violence	Substantial evidence supports IJ: no showing of government consent or acquiescence; CAT claim denied
Constitutional claims (denial of continuances; due process)	Romero claimed denial of continuances and misapplied legal standard violated due process	Gov't noted no record of continuance requests and correct CAT standard applied	Court rejected constitutional claims (no continuance request; proper legal standard applied)

Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972) (establishes "facially legitimate and bona fide" review in visa-denial context)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (articulates substantial-evidence review for factual findings in immigration cases)
Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2016) (refused to apply "facially legitimate" standard to reasonable-fear determinations)
Bonilla v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2018) (discusses relief available after reinstatement and jurisdiction over reasonable-fear denials)
Garcia v. Att'y Gen., 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011) (describes the extraordinarily deferential substantial-evidence standard)
Sandie v. Att'y Gen., 562 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2009) (factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator compelled to conclude otherwise)
Myrie v. Att'y Gen., 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017) (sets CAT elements for torture claims)
Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (discusses CAT standards and elements)
Gonzalez-Posadas v. Att'y Gen., 781 F.3d 677 (3d Cir. 2015) (personal conflicts and isolated crimes do not establish persecution on account of a protected ground)
S.E.R.L. v. Att'y Gen., 894 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2018) (family-based groups must show social distinctiveness to qualify as a particular social group)