Alicia Naranjo Garcia v. Robert Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136

Background:

Alicia Naranjo Garcia, a Mexican national, lost her husband in 2012 after the Knights Templar cartel kidnapped him to obtain inherited property; he was later found shot dead.
Garcia publicly blamed the cartel at the funeral and was later threatened; the cartel did not bother her for ~5½ years.
In 2018 cartel members attempted to recruit her U.S.-citizen son; Garcia helped him flee to the U.S.; cartel then threatened Garcia, told her to leave within a month, and said they would keep her house, so she fled to the U.S. in May 2018.
Garcia applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the IJ found her credible and that she had experienced past persecution but denied relief for lack of nexus to a protected ground, insufficient showing of inability to relocate, and inadequacy of CAT evidence.
The BIA affirmed solely on nexus for asylum (assuming, for argument, family membership and property ownership were cognizable groups), denied withholding by treating withholding as necessarily failing if asylum failed, and upheld the CAT denial; Garcia petitioned for review.
The Ninth Circuit accepted credibility and past-persecution findings but held the BIA erred on nexus for both alleged social groups and on the withholding-of-removal nexus standard; it remanded asylum and withholding issues and affirmed denial of CAT relief.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garcia was persecuted "on account of" property ownership (asylum nexus)	Property ownership was a central cause of the cartel’s efforts to seize property and force her out	Persecution was for property/the cartel’s greed or retaliation tied to son’s recruitment refusal, not a protected ground	BIA erred: evidence showed property ownership was a cause and mixed-motive precedent requires remand to analyze cognizability and nexus
Whether Garcia was persecuted "on account of" family association (asylum nexus)	Cartel targeted her at her husband’s funeral and later for helping her son—showing animus toward the family	Government: this was personal retribution/anti-recruitment, not on account of family membership	BIA erred: credible, uncontradicted testimony and timing/statements support nexus; remand for BIA to decide cognizability and other asylum elements
Whether BIA applied correct nexus standard for withholding of removal	Withholding requires that a protected characteristic be “a reason” (a weaker motive) for persecution; BIA used the asylum “one central reason” test	Government says BIA applied correct standards (cites IJ addendum) and denial logically follows	Court held BIA conflated standards; remanded for BIA to apply the proper "a reason" standard for withholding
Whether Garcia is entitled to CAT relief	Garcia argued prior threats and cartel conduct make torture more likely than not	Government relied on lack of past physical harm, Garcia’s prior peaceful years in Michoacán, absence of relocation attempts, and government efforts against cartels	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports BIA’s denial because record does not compel conclusion torture is more likely than not

Key Cases Cited

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinguishes asylum motive "one central reason" from withholding motive "a reason")
Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2018) (family association can supply nexus where persecutors specifically sought out the family)
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (mixed-motive framework: a protected ground is a "central reason" if it caused the persecutor's acts)
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1984) (withholding requires showing a "clear probability" of persecution)
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT relief requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant will be tortured)
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) (defines torture and explains CAT’s objective standard)