Ana Sanchez Sebastian-Sebastian v. Merrick B. Garland, 87f4th838

Background

Petitioner Ana Sanchez Sebastian-Sebastian, a native of Guatemala, and her daughter entered the U.S.; Ana applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection (daughter seeks derivative asylum).
Ana testified to long‑term physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by her husband and participation/instigation by her in‑laws, especially her mother‑in‑law, who publicly accused Ana and her daughter of witchcraft and excluded them from the community.
After a 2015 town proceeding in which townspeople nearly mobbed her and once before witnessing a woman burned as a witch, Ana and her daughter were forced onto the street and Ana fled to the U.S. in April 2016.
The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief in 2018; the BIA dismissed the appeal in 2023, concluding Ana’s harm resulted from a personal vendetta rather than a protected ground.
The Sixth Circuit held the BIA erred by failing to consider whether the persecutors’ personal animus and prejudice tied to Ana’s status as a Guatemalan Chuj woman in a domestic relationship were inextricably intertwined (mixed‑motive nexus) and vacated/remanded the asylum and withholding denials; it upheld the CAT denial and rejected the due‑process claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sebastian‑Sebastian)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't/BIA)	Held
Nexus for asylum (particular social groups: Guatemalan Chuj women in domestic relationships who cannot leave; viewed as property)	Persecutors’ hostility was at least partly motivated by her status (inability to leave/property status); motives were mixed and intertwined with cultural prejudice	Harm was driven by a personal vendetta of the mother‑in‑law, not membership in a protected group; no nexus	Vacated and remanded: BIA erred by not considering mixed motives/inextricably intertwined motivations and must re‑assess nexus and remaining asylum elements
Withholding of removal (higher probability standard not required for nexus)	If remanded on asylum, withholding should be reconsidered under the lower "a reason" standard; evidence supports reconsideration	BIA found no clear error in IJ’s nexus finding and denied relief	Remanded for BIA to consider withholding on the full record (court did not resolve merits)
CAT protection (torture more likely than not)	Country conditions and prior abuse make torture more likely than not if returned; law enforcement is ineffective; relative works for government	Record shows only one post‑departure threat and no evidence of government acquiescence; insufficient proof of likelihood of torture	Denial of CAT relief affirmed: substantial evidence supports BIA that petitioner failed to show more‑likely‑than‑not risk of torture
Due process (failure to address issues / consider factors)	BIA and IJ failed to address several issues on appeal and omitted relevant factors affecting outcome	Disagreement over evidence is not a due‑process violation; petitioner failed to identify specific factors omitted or show prejudice	Denied: petitioner failed to show actual prejudice or a due‑process violation

Key Cases Cited

I.N.S. v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (motive is required element of asylum eligibility)
Al‑Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009) (mixed motives and inextricably intertwined prejudice can establish nexus)
Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2010) (remand required when BIA fails to fully consider issues)
Gilaj v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2005) (examine overall context to determine nexus; remand when agency fails to analyze)
Guzman‑Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020) (distinguishes asylum and withholding nexus standards)
Namo v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2005) (CAT standard: more likely than not tortured; applicant testimony may suffice)
Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2007) (withholding: clear probability defined as >50% likelihood)
Marikasi v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2016) (definition of "particular social group")