Luis Castillo-Enriquez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16733

Castillo-Enriquez illegally entered the United States in 2002.
DHS began removal proceedings in 2008; he conceded removability and sought withholding of removal and TPS.
He testified his parents are lawful permanent residents and his fear stems from his family being extorted in 2007.
The IJ denied relief; the BIA affirmed, and the petition for review followed.
El Salvador was designated for TPS in 2001; eligibility requires presence since designation dates and residence in the U.S.
Castillo-Enriquez argues for TPS by imputing his parents’ eligibility; court rejects this interpretation and holds he fails the physical-presence and residency requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extortion fear of a family is a protected social group.	Castillo-Enriquez argues extortion fear warrants relief.	BIA contends extortion against wealthy family does not equal persecution or a protected group.	Not protected; no withholding relief.
Whether Castillo-Enriquez is eligible for TPS despite not meeting physical-presence/residency.	TPS regulations permit imputation from parents' eligibility to children.	Regulations require physical presence and residence; imputation does not override requirements.	Ineligible for TPS; TPS eligibility requires presence and residence; held against Castillo-Enriquez.

Zhu v. Gonzalez, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (deference to BIA interpretations of statutory scheme)
Rodriguez v. Holder, 366 F. App’x 555 (5th Cir. 2010) (economic extortion not persecution; wealthy status not a protected group)
de Leon-Ochoa v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 622 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 2010) (TPS eligibility limits; imputation argument rejected)
Cervantes v. Holder, 597 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2010) (TPS eligibility interpretation aligned with de Leon-Ochoa)
Thapa v. Holder, 357 F. App’x 591 (5th Cir. 2009) (analysis of TPS eligibility and regulatory text)