Introduction

Castellan-Barrera v. Bondi, decided on June 4, 2025 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, addresses the asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) applications of Darwin Stevens Castellanos-Barrera, an El Salvador national targeted by MS-13 and Salvadoran authorities. The petitioner entered the United States without inspection, admitted removability, and then claimed persecution on account of his religion and membership in two proposed particular social groups (“PSGs”). The Immigration Judge denied relief, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upheld that denial, and the Fifth Circuit per curiam opinion now resolves whether:

• He demonstrated a nexus between his persecution and a protected ground;
• His proposed social groups satisfy the immutability, particularity, and social visibility requirements;
• He is entitled to CAT protection; and
• He suffered due process or privacy violations during proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit denied Castellan-Barrera’s petition in full. Key holdings include:

• No asylum or withholding of removal: the petitioner failed to show persecution on account of religion or membership in an accepted PSG.
• No CAT protection: his accounts of past police mistreatment did not rise to “torture,” and he offered insufficient proof of government acquiescence in MS-13 violence.
• No due process or privacy relief: he did not demonstrate prejudice from an allegedly missing IJ decision or from inadvertent ICE data disclosure.
• Jurisdiction confirmed despite removal, as collateral consequences (period of inadmissibility) remain.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2005): substantial-evidence review standard for asylum and withholding findings.
• Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002): “more likely than not” standard for withholding of removal is higher than asylum’s “central reason” test.
• Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2019): three-part test for particular social groups (immutability, particularity, social visibility).
• Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) & Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056 (5th Cir. 2020): reluctance to recognize “resistors to gang recruitment” as a PSG.
• Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2021): collateral legal consequences preserve jurisdiction post-removal.
• Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2019): CAT requires proof of “torture” and government acquiescence; inability of a state to protect alone is insufficient.
• Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2020): distinguishes “persecution” from the higher threshold of “torture.”

2. Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two-tiered review: factual determinations for asylum/withholding and CAT under the substantial-evidence test, and legal conclusions de novo.

• Nexus Requirement: Petitioner’s testimony confirmed MS-13 targeted him to re-recruit or punish defection, not because of his Christianity. No evidence showed animus toward his faith, so no nexus to a protected ground (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)).
• Particular Social Group Test:
  1. Immutable Characteristic: “status as a current or former gang member” arguably immutable.
  2. Particularity & Social Visibility: the BIA found “men who resist gang recruitment” amorphous and not socially recognized as a group, consistent with Orellana-Monson and Suate-Orellana.
• CAT Analysis:
  1. Past “persecution” by police did not meet “torture” standard (Gjetani).
  2. Government acquiescence: active police investigation into shooting report evidenced willingness to protect, not willful blindness (Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates).
• Due Process & Privacy Claims:
  1. No prejudice shown from lack of oral IJ decision; petitioner nevertheless cited the IJ’s ruling in his BIA brief.
  2. ICE’s inadvertent data disclosure did not lead to foreign government awareness or punishment of asylum seekers (Day o v. Holder).
• Exhaustion Doctrine: New PSG arguments raised for the first time on appeal were forfeited—BIA would not have considered them in the first instance (Munoz-De Zelaya v. Garland).

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision reaffirms critical principles:

• Strict application of the nexus requirement: petitioners must show protected-ground animus, not merely gang motive.
• Particular social groups remain narrowly construed: refusal to join a criminal organization is unlikely a cognizable group.
• CAT acquiescence demands more than incapacity to protect; evidence of active effort or willful blindness is essential.
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies remains mandatory for PSG theories.
• Collateral consequences preserve jurisdiction even after physical removal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial-Evidence Review

Courts defer to the BIA’s factual findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could reach the same conclusion.

Particular Social Group (PSG)

A group recognized as sharing an immutable trait, defined clearly enough to be distinct, and visible to society.

Torture vs. Persecution

Torture involves severe pain or suffering inflicted by or with government complicity—higher than the persecution threshold.

Nexus

The required link between harm suffered and a protected ground, such as religion or group membership.

Exhaustion Requirement

Claimants must present all legal theories to the IJ and BIA before asking the circuit court to consider them.

Conclusion

Castellan-Barrera v. Bondi clarifies the rigorous standards petitioners must satisfy when alleging asylum or withholding claims arising from gang persecution. It underscores the strict nexus inquiry, the narrow scope of particular social groups, the high bar for CAT relief, and the importance of preserving issues through proper administrative channels. Future asylum seekers and practitioners should heed these guidelines to ensure that claims are properly framed and supported from the outset.