Jose Anselmo Castro-Castro v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1715
JOSE ANSELMO CASTRO-CASTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 29, 2026 Decided: July 17, 2026
Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Petition granted and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Benjamin J. Osorio, Megan B. Herndon, Leah Haynes, MURRAY OSORIO
PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General,
Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig W. Kuhn, Senior Trial Attorney, Civil
Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Jose Anselmo Castro-Castro has petitioned for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his applications
for asylum and withholding of removal based his political opinion. We grant the petition
and remand.
To obtain asylum, Castro-Castro must show three things—he suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, that persecution is on account
of his political opinion and that persecution is perpetrated by an organization El Salvador’s
government is unable or unwilling to control. Portillo Flores v. Garland, 3 F.4th 615, 626
(4th Cir. 2021) (en banc); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1158(b)(1)(A).1 Although
an applicant may succeed by showing either past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution, establishing past persecution entitles an applicant to a presumption that
they have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Portillo Flores, 3 F.4th at 629. If the
government demonstrates either that circumstances have changed and an applicant no
longer has a fear of future persecution or that the applicant can avoid future persecution by
relocating elsewhere in their home country and it would be reasonable to do so, then an
immigration judge must deny the applicant’s asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R.
1 Withholding of removal operates similarly. The government “may not remove an
alien to a country if the [government] decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be
threatened in that country because of the alien’s . . . political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A). But applicants for withholding of removal must satisfy a higher burden
of proof. Morales v. Garland, 51 F.4th 553, 556 (4th Cir. 2022). So, as the immigration
judge and the Board found, an applicant who can’t show persecution can’t qualify for
withholding of removal. Id. That means Castro-Castro’s withholding claim rises and falls
with his asylum claim for the purpose of his petition.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A)–(B).
Castro-Castro makes two arguments. First, he contends the Board’s conclusion runs
afoul of our precedent concerning death threats and persecution. In our circuit, persecution
includes “the infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on
account of” political opinion. Portillo Flores, 3 F.4th at 626–27 (emphasis in original)
(quoting Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)). Persecution can “include[]
actions less severe than threats to life or freedom, [but] actions must rise above the level of
mere harassment to constitute persecution.” Id. at 627 (quoting Li, 405 F.3d at 177). A
death threat alone constitutes persecution. Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, 42 F.4th 443, 449
(4th Cir. 2022). Here, the Board assumed Castro-Castro testified credibly and noted
ARENA party members had threatened him with death on four occasions. But the Board
discounted the severity of these threats. This conflicts with our precedent.
Second, Castro-Castro argues the Board failed to consider his youth in
contravention of Portillo Flores. In that case, we held that “[w]here a petitioner is a child
at the time of the alleged persecution, the immigration court must take the child’s age into
account in analyzing past persecution and fear of future persecution for purposes of
asylum.” Portillo Flores, 3 F.4th at 629. Here, the Board dismissed Castro-Castro’s appeal
almost four years after Portillo Flores but still didn’t consider Castro-Castro’s age. This
also conflicts with our precedent.
Because of these two errors, we grant the petition and remand for further
proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 3 of 4 --

4
adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED

-- 4 of 4 --