Fulgencio Castillo Guardardo v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAY 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FULGENCIO ESAU CASTILLO No. 17-70802 GUARDARDO,

Agency No. A095-811-433 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 20, 2022** Pasadena, California

Before: LEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

Fulgencio Esau Castillo Guardardo (“Guardardo”), a native and citizen of El *

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).

***

The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

We review questions of law de novo. Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). Under this standard, we must uphold the agency’s determination unless any reasonable trier of fact “‘would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)).

The agency found that the record did not reflect that El Salvador police or government authorities were unwilling or unable to help Guardardo and dismissed his appeal.2 This finding is supported by substantial evidence.

To qualify for withholding of removal, Guardardo must show, inter alia, that the Salvadoran authorities cannot protect him. Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]o qualify an alien for asylum [or withholding of removal], the persecution must have been ‘committed by the government’ or, as relevant here, ‘by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.’” (quotation omitted)). Although Guardardo points to abuse from his father and country reports noting that child abuse is a “problem” in El Salvador, the reports also demonstrate that El Salvador is enacting policies and programs to address this issue.

Considering, as we must, all the evidence in the record, see Bringas-Rodriguez, 850 F.3d at 1069, including the country reports, we hold that the record does not compel the conclusion that Salvadoran authorities are unwilling or unable to protect Guardardo from his father’s abuse. See Velasquez-Gaspar, 976 F.3d at 1064-65 (denying petition for review where country reports showed Guatemala was working—albeit unevenly—to combat violence against women, criminalized rape and domestic abuse, and offered shelters for women); Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (denying petition for review—despite applicant’s testimony that she was afraid to report to the police because her father may have beaten her—because country reports showed that Honduras tried to strengthen domestic violence laws and had criminalized rape). This is particularly so when Guardardo never reported the abuse to the police. Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Hussain never claimed that he reported the 2007 or 2012 attacks to law enforcement authorities or ever sought police assistance, which we balance in our analysis of the BIA’s determination.”).

PETITION DENIED.