The direct answer
Does forced military service automatically prevent the persecutor bar from applying?
No. The Ninth Circuit held that the statute contains no implied duress defense. Military membership alone is not an automatic disqualification: the adjudicator must still evaluate the applicant's individual responsibility. When the evidence indicates that the bar may apply, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it does not. The court did not hold that every act of compulsory service constitutes assistance in persecution.
What happened in Perez-Castillo?
In its published September 8, 2026 opinion in Perez-Castillo v. Blanche, No. 21-70087, the Ninth Circuit held that the immigration persecutor bar contains no implied duress defense.
The petitioner sought NACARA special-rule cancellation and described compulsory military service in El Salvador. Evidence linked his service to the Atonal Battalion, which was associated with serious human-rights violations.
The government raised the persecutor-bar issue, and the immigration judge made an adverse-credibility finding that the petitioner did not challenge. The Ninth Circuit concluded that he failed to rebut the bar and denied his petition for review.
What did the court decide?
The court independently interpreted the statute after Loper Bright and concluded that Congress did not include an implied duress defense. An involuntary contribution can therefore potentially qualify as assistance in persecution.
This does not mean that everyone who experienced forced military service is automatically disqualified from immigration relief. Adjudicators must still evaluate individual responsibility for persecution committed by others. The decision does not make membership in a military or armed organization sufficient by itself.
At pages 21–22, the court expressly declined to define what conduct counts as assistance or participation in persecution, given the unchallenged adverse-credibility finding. The decision also does not reopen prior cases automatically.
Who bears the burden of proof?
When the evidence indicates that the persecutor bar may apply, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it does not. In this case, the court found sufficient evidence to raise an inference of personal involvement and purposeful assistance in persecution.
At page 12, the panel expressly left unresolved whether the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the evidentiary threshold conflicts with the BIA's interpretation. It concluded that the evidence satisfied both standards. The decision should not be described as resolving that threshold disagreement or creating a new universal government burden.
What forms of relief may be affected?
The persecutor bar can affect asylum, statutory withholding of removal, NACARA special-rule cancellation, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. CAT deferral remains a separate potential protection when its requirements are established; it is not automatically granted because another form of relief is barred.
Perez-Castillo is a published Ninth Circuit decision. The forum, applicable precedent, procedural history, and individual evidence must be reviewed for each case.
Verified key dates
- 2009: The Supreme Court decided Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, and returned the duress issue to the agency.
- November 5, 2020: The Attorney General issued Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120, rejecting a duress exception.
- October 22, 2025: Matter of Negusie, 29 I&N Dec. 285, restored the 2020 decision as the operative opinion.
- September 8, 2026: The Ninth Circuit filed Perez-Castillo v. Blanche, No. 21-70087.
Frequently asked questions
Quick answers
Does compulsory military service automatically make someone a persecutor?
No. The person's actual conduct, knowledge, role, testimony, and connection to persecution must be evaluated individually.
Can duress alone defeat the persecutor bar in the Ninth Circuit?
No. Perez-Castillo holds that the statute contains no implied duress defense. The person's service history and surrounding circumstances must still be examined to determine what occurred and whether the conduct constitutes assistance or participation in persecution.
Is any protection available if the persecutor bar applies?
Possibly. The bar can foreclose several forms of relief, including asylum and withholding. Deferral of removal under CAT may remain available when its separate requirements are established.
Sources and further reading
Use these links to review the reporting, official guidance or underlying rule.
Ninth Circuit: Perez-Castillo v. Blanche, No. 21-70087 (September 8, 2026), especially pages 6, 10, 12, and 21–22DOJ: Matter of Negusie, 29 I&N Dec. 285 (A.G. October 22, 2025)