Luis Castillo-Rosas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS CASTILLO-ROSAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71581
Agency No. A074-334-326
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 1, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, BENNETT, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Luis Castillo-Rosas, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an
Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny his application for withholding of removal and
FILED
SEP 3 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Castillo’s claim for
withholding of removal because Castillo failed to show that it is more likely than
not that he would be persecuted on return to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i). The 1997 kidnaping by the Zetas did not rise to the level of
past persecution because Castillo was merely threatened and not harmed. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016–17 (9th Cir. 2003). The record does not
compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Castillo would face future
persecution in Mexico because he received threats over 20 years ago and “[t]here is
no reason in the record to warrant a belief that [his] alleged persecutors would still
be interested in [him].” Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934–35 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Castillo’s particular social group claim because he
raises it for the first time on appeal. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Castillo’s CAT
claim because the past threats he experienced and the country conditions reports
describing generalized violence in Mexico do not compel the conclusion that
Castillo is more likely than not to suffer torture if removed to Mexico. See 8
2

-- 2 of 3 --

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029–30 (9th
Cir. 2019).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --