Andrade-Vindel v. Garland, 19-60533

Petitioner Santos Wilfredo Andrade-Vindel, a Honduran national, sought withholding of removal and cancellation of removal.
An Immigration Judge denied both forms of relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the denial.
For withholding, the BIA found Andrade failed to show a nexus between feared persecution and his asserted particular social group (his family), concluding past targeting appeared personal/criminal in motive.
For cancellation, the BIA applied the stop-time rule under a two-step notice-to-appear framework and concluded Andrade lacked ten years of continuous physical presence.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence; it affirmed the withholding denial but vacated and remanded the cancellation denial in light of Niz-Chavez.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Andrade showed persecution "on account of" membership in his family (PSG) to qualify for withholding of removal	Andrade: persecutors targeted him and relatives because they are family (PSG)	Garland: attacks were motivated by personal/criminal reasons, not on account of a protected ground	Held: BIA decision affirmed — substantial evidence supports lack of nexus to PSG
Whether Andrade had ten years of continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal under the stop-time rule	Andrade: his continuous presence was sufficient; applying Pereira/Niz-Chavez, the stop-time was not triggered by a deficient notice	Garland: BIA applied two-step notice process and concluded stop-time was triggered before ten years	Held: BIA's denial vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Niz-Chavez (single-document requirement)

Orellano-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review: legal questions de novo, factual findings for substantial evidence)
Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining the substantial-evidence standard requires compelling evidence to overturn)
Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2004) (threats or attacks motivated by personal or criminal reasons do not qualify as persecution on account of a protected ground)
Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2009) (courts afford deference to the BIA's statutory interpretations absent compelling evidence of error)
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (notice to appear that omits time/place does not trigger stop-time)
Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019) (approved a two-step notice process later called into question)
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) (single compliant document required to stop accrual of continuous-presence time; overruled the two-step approach)