The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Jose Margarito Perez-Castillo's petition for review regarding his immigration status. The court ruled that Perez-Castillo is ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) due to his ties to a military battalion implicated in human rights abuses. This ruling affects Perez-Castillo and his family, who sought refuge in the United States after fleeing violence in El Salvador.
The case, officially titled Jose Margarito Perez-Castillo v. Todd Blanche, was filed under docket number 21-70087. The court's decision, issued on September 8, 2026, highlights the complexities surrounding immigration relief for individuals with past military service in countries with histories of persecution.
Jose Margarito Perez-Castillo entered the United States in 1988 after completing military service in El Salvador. He applied for asylum, fearing that guerrillas would forcibly recruit him due to his military background. His wife, Gladys Albertina Funes Alvarado, joined him in the U.S. in 1993 and was included in his asylum application. After a NACARA interview in 2003, his case was referred to immigration court, where the primary issue became whether his military service disqualified him from relief under NACARA as a persecutor.
During the proceedings, Perez-Castillo testified that he had been forcibly conscripted into military service at the age of 19 and later served as a radio operator. He admitted to being occasionally loaned to the Atonal Battalion, known for its severe human rights violations during the Salvadoran civil war. Despite his claims of having no involvement in human rights abuses, the court found discrepancies in his testimony, leading to an adverse credibility determination.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Perez-Castillo's application for NACARA relief in March 2009, citing contradictions in his statements and a lack of credible evidence to support his claims. The IJ noted that Perez-Castillo's military service raised the issue of the persecutor bar, which disqualifies individuals who have assisted in persecution based on race, religion, or political opinion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) later upheld this decision, emphasizing that Perez-Castillo failed to rebut the bar due to his credibility issues.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling confirmed the BIA's decision, stating, "The best reading of the persecutor bar is that it contains no implied duress defense." The court explained that the absence of a duress defense is consistent with the statute's plain text and that individuals who involuntarily contributed to persecution may still be considered as having assisted in it.
The court also addressed the implications of the Attorney General's interpretation of the persecutor bar, which has evolved over time. In previous cases, the Supreme Court indicated ambiguity regarding whether coercion or duress could be relevant to the determination of participation in persecution. However, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Attorney General's recent interpretation, which eliminated the duress defense, should be given limited weight but ultimately upheld the lack of a duress exception in the context of Perez-Castillo's case.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking immigration relief under NACARA and similar statutes. It reinforces the strict interpretation of the persecutor bar and clarifies that even involuntary participation in military actions associated with human rights abuses can disqualify individuals from relief. The decision may impact other cases involving individuals with military backgrounds from countries with histories of persecution.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Perez-Castillo will appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision or pursue other legal avenues. The case highlights ongoing debates about the interpretation of immigration laws and the treatment of individuals with complex histories of military service in conflict zones.