NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JHONATAN REYES-CASTILLO, No. 19-70021 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-917-843 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 9, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Jhonatan Reyes-Castillo petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary. * 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). I Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Castillo did not show that he was or will be persecuted based on a political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). Reyes-Castillo does not argue that he was persecuted based on any actual political opinion that he held, so the question is whether the record compels the conclusion that his alleged persecutors “attributed a political opinion” to Reyes-Castillo and “acted upon the attribution.” Cruz- Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The record shows no imputed political opinion—only that the Sendero Luminoso attackers called Reyes-Castillo a “snitch” or “informant” and that he encountered a dead dog with a note that read, “You rat informant, you’re going to die.” Reyes-Castillo suggests that the Sendero Luminoso likely researched his voting history and inferred from the dates on which he voted that he supported pro- government parties, but such speculative leaps are not compelled by the record. Further, facts about the Sendero Luminoso’s overarching political goals, including the objective evidence of country conditions, are “irrelevant” because our focus is “the victim’s political opinion, not the persecutor’s.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481–82 (1992). As in Cruz-Navarro where the petitioner, an active-duty police officer, was 2 called “policeman” and “informer” by Sendero Luminoso assailants, the evidence here does not “impl[y] that the guerillas believed [Reyes-Castillo] to hold political beliefs contrary to their own, much less that they attacked him because of such beliefs.” Cruz-Navarro, 232 F.3d. at 1030. To “regard[] [Reyes-Castillo] as an informant . . . is not akin to imputing a political belief to him.” Id.; see also Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1163–65 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding no imputed political opinion where a police officer was beaten and threatened because of his role in a drug investigation). II Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Castillo did not show that he was or will be persecuted based on his membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). To be cognizable, a proposed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals