Juan Castillo v. William Barr
980 F.3d 1278
9th Cir.2020Background:
- Juan Mauricio Castillo, a Salvadoran who entered the U.S. as a child, was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder arising from gang-related violence.
- He was a member of MS-13, later joined a rival prison gang (Mi Raza Unida), cooperated with U.S. law enforcement, and both gangs issued a "greenlight" on him that applies in the U.S. and El Salvador.
- After parole, DHS initiated removal; Castillo sought withholding of removal and CAT protection, alleging a >50% chance of torture if returned to El Salvador.
- Castillo presented expert Dr. Thomas Boerman, who testified Castillo faced torture risk from (1) Salvadoran immigration officials identifying and abusing tattooed ex-gang members, (2) local police, (3) MS-13 and other gangs enforcing the greenlight, and (4) vigilante/extermination groups allegedly linked to officials.
- The IJ discounted Dr. Boerman’s testimony; the Board affirmed. This court previously remanded, finding the Agency had improperly discounted the expert; the Board again gave the expert reduced weight and declined to follow the prior panel’s interpretation.
- The Ninth Circuit granted review, found the Board erred in discounting the expert without adequate reasons, directed the Board to give full weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony, and remanded for the Agency to determine government acquiescence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Castillo) | Defendant's Argument (Board/DHS/Barr) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly discredited the expert testimony | Dr. Boerman’s opinions are credible and supported by record; rejection lacked adequate explanation | The Board identified inconsistencies, missing underlying video, and lack of corroboration as reasons to afford reduced weight | Court: Board erred; must give full weight to Dr. Boerman unless it provides reasoned explanation why his testimony is not dispositive |
| Whether the Board had to follow this Court’s prior remand finding about the IJ’s credibility determination | Castillo: prior panel’s holdings are binding and Board must implement them | Board: disagreed with prior panel’s interpretation and re-weighed testimony | Court: prior Ninth Circuit disposition was binding; Board’s refusal to implement it was improper |
| Whether an expert must produce underlying evidence or corroboration for opinions to be credited | Castillo: expert opinion may rest on hearsay/facts provided by client and need not attach every source; the expert’s testimony alone can be probative | Board: lack of underlying video and corroborating documentary evidence undermines the expert’s reliability | Court: expert need not submit all underlying data; absence of one video or external corroboration does not justify discounting uncontradicted expert opinion |
| Whether the Agency applied an improper chain-of-events analysis instead of aggregating risks | Castillo: Agency failed to aggregate multiple risk sources and relied on a chain-of-events approach | Board: IJ discussed chain-of-events and Board assessed aggregate risk | Court: Board assessed aggregate risk; rejection of expert remains the primary error |
Key Cases Cited
- Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review: Board’s factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzalez, 458 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2006) (definition of substantial evidence for immigration proceedings)
- Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2011) (Board must explain on record why rejected expert testimony is insufficient to establish probability of torture)
- Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2004) (CAT requires showing "more likely than not" torture; >50% chance)
- Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (aggravated-felony convictions do not categorically bar CAT relief)
- Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (experts may base opinions on hearsay and need not have personal knowledge of all underlying facts)
- Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (underlying facts for an expert’s opinion need not be admissible to admit the opinion)
- Velasquez-Banegas v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 258 (7th Cir. 2017) (expert testimony accepted as truthful and uncontradicted cannot be disregarded for lack of citation to supporting reports)
- Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 2020) (prior court dispositions must be implemented by the agency)
- Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing authentication/weight of documentary evidence from credibility of fully professed expert testimony)