The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Guatemalan nationals seeking asylum and protection from torture. The court found that the petitioners failed to meaningfully challenge the government's inability to protect them from gang violence and did not meet the high bar for proving a likelihood of future torture.
Petitioners Anibal Berduo Castillo, Maria Ignacia Ramirez, and their three children, all nationals of Guatemala, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The petitioners alleged harm from gang violence in Guatemala.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals decision de novo for legal questions and under the substantial evidence standard for factual findings. The court held that the petitioners forfeited their argument regarding the government’s inability to protect them because they failed to meaningfully challenge that specific determination in their administrative brief. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found that the record did not compel a conclusion that the petitioners faced a sufficient likelihood of torture, noting that generalized country conditions evidence is insufficient to meet the more likely than not standard.
What it means going forward
The denial of the petition leaves in place the immigration judge’s and Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions denying asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection to the petitioners.
