`
`
`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`JUL 10 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`MARIA CAMILA CASTRO RUBIO, et al.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
`PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
`
` Respondent.
`
` No. 24-4421
`
`Agency Nos.
`A241-743-177
`A241-743-178
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of an Order of the
`Board of Immigration Appeals
`
`Submitted July 7, 2025**
`Seattle, Washington
`
`
`Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Petitioner Maria Camila Castro-Rubio (“Maria”) and her minor daughter
`
`V.N.P.C. (together, “Petitioners”), both natives and citizens of Colombia, seek
`
`review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals
`
`(“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision that
`
`denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
`
`*
`
`
`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 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
`
`Petitioners illegally entered the United States in August 2022, and the U.S.
`
`Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against them in
`
`October 2022. Conceding removability, Petitioners applied for asylum, withholding
`
`of removal, and CAT protection, claiming that they feared persecution on account
`
`of their membership in the particular social group of the family members of Juan
`
`Pablo Porras-Lengurque (“Porras”), Maria’s partner and V.N.P.C.’s father.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Our “review is limited to the
`
`BIA’s decision except where the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” 1 Plancarte
`
`Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). And we review the agency’s
`
`factual findings for substantial evidence and reverse them “only where ‘any
`
`reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Hussain
`
`v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we grant the petition for review and remand.
`
`Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recount them only as relevant to
`
`our decision.
`
`1.
`
`Asylum and withholding of removal are unavailable if Petitioners can
`
`safely and reasonably relocate within Colombia. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654,
`
`659 (9th Cir. 2019). The agency “must conduct a reasoned analysis with respect to
`
`
`1 We refer to the BIA and the IJ collectively as “the agency.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`24-4421
`
`
`
`
`
`[Petitioners’] individualized situation.” 2 Id. at 661. In this case, the agency
`
`determined that Petitioners could safely and reasonably relocate to Cucuta,
`
`Colombia, or elsewhere in Colombia.3 In so determining, the agency misstated the
`
`record as to the safety of Cucuta and failed to evaluate whether Porras could
`
`reasonably return to Colombia and, if not, whether Petitioners could reasonably
`
`relocate within Colombia without Porras’s company.
`
`Specifically, the agency found that Petitioners could avoid future persecution
`
`by relocating to Cucuta because they had “already relocated once to [Cucuta] and,
`
`while [they were] there, no one came to look for them.” This finding misstates the
`
`record because Maria credibly testified that “la guerrilla” gave Porras a threatening
`
`phone call while Petitioners lived in Cucuta, and that “la guerrilla” then went to
`
`Cucuta and left a threatening letter at Porras’s aunt’s house in Cucuta.
`
`The agency also reasoned that Petitioners could avoid future persecution by
`
`relocating to other places in Colombia because Maria “is young, educated, has
`
`proven employment history, and has a family support network.” The agency seems
`
`
`2
`Petitioners bear the burden of establishing that it would be unreasonable for
`them to relocate within Colombia because they failed to prove past persecution. 8
`C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3)(i), 1208.16(b)(3)(i).
`3
`The IJ also opined that, upon removal to Colombia, Petitioners could safely
`and reasonably live with Maria’s parents in Bucaramanga, Colombia, because “none
`of [her parents had] suffered any direct threats or harm.” The BIA did not seem to
`have adopted this finding. In any event, this finding conflicts with Maria’s credible
`testimony that “la guerrilla” broke the windows of her parents’ house and left a
`threatening note.
`
`
`
`3
`
`24-4421
`
`
`
`
`
`to have assumed—without much analysis—that Porras could reasonably return to
`
`Colombia alongside Petitioners. But that assumption appears to be at odds with the
`
`agency’s own passing assessment that Porras might risk future persecution upon
`
`removal to Colombia. Given this risk assessment, it might not be reasonable for
`
`Porras to return to Colombia. And without Porras’s company, it might not be
`
`reasonable for Petitioners to return to Colombia and relocate therein. The agency
`
`thus erred in failing to discuss adequately this highly probative and potentially
`
`dispositive consideration in its relocation analysis. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320
`
`F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`Therefore, we grant the petition and remand as to Petitioners’ applications for
`
`asylum and withholding of removal.4 See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th
`
`Cir. 2011) (holding that a BIA decision “cannot stand” where it “misstat[es] the
`
`record and fail[s] to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence”).
`
`2.
`
`To be eligible for CAT protection, an alien must show “it is more likely
`
`than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
`
`removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The torture must be “inflicted by, or at the
`
`instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an
`
`
`4
`Nothing in this disposition precludes the agency from denying Petitioners’
`applications for asylum and withholding of removal on other grounds. The agency
`may also deny Petitioners’ applications again on the relocation ground with a fuller
`discussion of the relevant considerations. We intimate no view as to whether Porras
`in fact has a reasonable fear of future persecution upon removal to Colombia.
`
`
`
`4
`
`24-4421
`
`
`
`
`
`official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” Id. § 1208.18(a)(1).
`
`In this case, the agency denied Petitioners’ CAT claim because they failed to
`
`establish that the Colombian government would consent or acquiesce to any future
`
`torture that Petitioners feared.
`
`“A government does not [consent or] acquiesce to torture where the
`
`government actively, albeit not entirely successfully, combats the illegal activities.”
`
`Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (cleaned
`
`up). Here, country conditions evidence suggests that the Colombian government
`
`does investigate human right abuses and violent crimes by armed groups and
`
`prosecute those responsible. Petitioners’ own experience in this case also does not
`
`suggest otherwise.5
`
`Therefore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Petitioners’
`
`CAT claim.
`
`PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
`
`PART; REMANDED.6
`
`
`5
`It is unclear from the record whether the General Prosecutor’s Office
`investigated Porras’s case, as neither Porras nor Maria followed up with the General
`Prosecutor’s Office after Porras reported the extortion.
`6
`Petitioners’ motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 3) is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`5
`
`24-4421
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
