Case: 20-10534 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10534
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A209-341-400
KENIA ELIZABETH CASTILLO-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 2, 2020)
Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 20-10534 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 2 of 6
Kenia Elizabeth Castillo-Perez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s decision to dismiss her appeal of the immigration judge’s
denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. She argues that
the board and the immigration judge erred in finding that she did not establish a
nexus between her persecution and her membership in a particular social group (her
family). We deny her petition.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Castillo-Perez, a native and citizen of Honduras, illegally entered the United
States on August 17, 2016. On August 19, 2016, the government charged her with
being removable for entering without admission at a port of entry. Castillo-Perez
conceded that she was removable and applied for asylum and withholding of
removal based on her membership in “a particular social group,” which she
identified as her family. She claimed past persecution and a fear of future
persecution related to threats that she and her brother received from their neighbors
in Honduras.
While in Honduras, Castillo-Perez’s family had a neighbor, Panfilo Molina,
who died shortly after fainting on or near their farm. After Molina’s death, his
daughters threatened revenge on Castillo-Perez and her brother. The daughters
believed that Castillo-Perez and her brother were responsible for Molina’s death and
2
Case: 20-10534 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 3 of 6
they threatened to kill Castillo-Perez. Despite the threats, Castillo-Perez and her
brother were never harmed.
An immigration judge denied Castillo-Perez’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal. The immigration judge found that her testimony was not
credible and that she had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear
of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The immigration judge
found that Castillo-Perez had not established that the threats she faced “were
motivated by family ties.” Rather, the immigration judge found that they were
motivated by revenge against her and her brother for Molina’s death.
The board agreed with the immigration judge and dismissed Castillo-Perez’s
appeal. The board found that Castillo-Perez failed to show past persecution because
she had never been physically harmed. And the board found that Castillo-Perez
“ha[d] not established the necessary nexus between the claimed fear of persecution
and a protected ground” because she failed to show that the persecution was on
account of family ties.
Castillo-Perez petitions for review of the board’s decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the decision of the board as the final judgment, unless the board
expressly adopted the immigration judge’s opinion. Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). Where the board agrees with the
3
Case: 20-10534 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 4 of 6
immigration judge’s reasoning, we review the decisions of both the board and the
immigration judge. Id.
We review the board’s and the immigration judge’s legal conclusions
de novo. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). And we
review factual findings under the substantial evidence test, viewing “the record
evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw[ing] all
reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Perez-Zenteno, 913 F.3d at 1306
(citation omitted). Whether there’s a nexus between persecution and a protected
ground is a finding of fact that we review under the substantial evidence test. See
Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1311 (11th Cir. 2013) (reviewing the
board’s and the immigration judge’s lack-of-nexus finding under the substantial
evidence test). We accept the board’s and the immigration judge’s finding if it is
“supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Perez-Zenteno, 913 F.3d at 1306 (citation omitted). To
reverse a factual finding, the record must not only support reversal, but compel it.
Id.
DISCUSSION
Castillo-Perez argues that the board and the immigration judge erred in
finding that she did not establish a nexus between her persecution (the threats) and
her membership in a particular social group (her family). We disagree.
4
Case: 20-10534 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 5 of 6
To be eligible for asylum, a noncitizen must show a “nexus” between her
persecution and a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion); the protected ground must be “at least
one central reason” for the persecution. Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d
1148, 1158 (11th Cir. 2019). Evidence of “private violence” is not evidence of
persecution on account of a protected ground. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d
1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006).
We assume (without deciding) that Castillo-Perez’s family was a particular
social group. Even so, the board and the immigration judge found that the Molinas’
threats against Castillo-Perez were motivated by “revenge against her or her brother”
not “revenge against the family.” This finding was supported by substantial
evidence.
First, the record evidence showed that the Molinas threatened Castillo-Perez
and her brother not because the Molinas blamed Castillo-Perez’s entire family, but
because they perceived that Castillo-Perez and her brother—and no one else—were
the ones responsible for Molina’s death. Castillo-Perez testified that only she and
her brother were threatened because they “were the . . . ones that lived in
Concepcion,” where the incident on the farm happened. Castillo-Perez’s brother
also said in his affidavit that the Molinas threatened him and his sister because the
Molinas believed they were responsible for Molina’s death. The Molinas did not
5
Case: 20-10534 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 6 of 6
hold Castillo-Perez’s parents responsible, even though it was their land and they also
lived there at the time.
Second, the record evidence showed that the Molinas did not threaten revenge
against anyone else in Castillo-Perez’s family other than her and her brother.
Castillo-Perez testified that none of her family members were harmed, even though
her parents, child, brother, and two other siblings still lived in Honduras.
Because the threats were only made against those that the Molinas perceived
to be responsible for their father’s death, and because no one else in Castillo-Perez’s
family was threatened, there was substantial evidence supporting the board’s and the
immigration judge’s finding that Castillo-Perez was targeted because of revenge, not
because of her family connections. And because Castillo-Perez did not satisfy the
standard for asylum, she cannot meet the higher burden for withholding of removal.
See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding
that Sepulveda could not establish a withholding of removal claim because she could
not meet the standard to establish her asylum claim).
PETITION DENIED.
6