You seem to be mixing anthropological groupings with cultural groupings. "Latinos" are caucasians derived from the Romanic tribes, but the term actually points to anybody from Latin America as defined by the French (also from the Romanic tribes) who wished to exclude Anglos (caucasians from Germanic tribes) from their endeavors in the Americas, not including North America, which was mostly Anglo. So a Latino is anybody from Latin America, and may or may not be Hispanic. "Hispanic" refers to Spain and any Spanish-speaking country in the Americas, which would exclude Brazil, for instance, although Brazil would nevertheless still be "Latino" because it's situated in Latin America. The racial crossovers are secondary considerations to these groupings, such as Mexicans who are a racial blend of caucasoid and mongoloid, but are notably Latino and Hispanic. So black or partially black Latinos are of Latin American heritage who have negroid DNA ancestry in their racial construction, and may or may not be Hispanic. In fact, the largest population of black Latinos is in Brazil, which is not Hispanic. Cuba and Puerto Rico both have sizable populations of blacks, who are Hispanic but not Latino. And then there are the Chileans who do not wish to be associated with or as "Latino" or "Hispanic," and I can understand why.
Simple, ain't it?
Kim is none of the above, but could pass for one, I suppose, to the untrained eye of a young Nor'easterner raised in a solid white bread community such as we find on the lax team. To my mind, she most closely resembles a Caribe, especially since she bears the warlike, cannibalesque demeanor of that ancestry. :>