Bhavanaben Dineshkumar Patel v. Pamela Bondi
131 F.4th 377
6th Cir.2025Background
- Bhavanaben Patel and her family, natives of Gujarat, India, fled to the U.S. to escape threats from loan sharks related to unpaid debts.
- The family did not report these threats to local authorities in India due to concerns about lacking legal proof.
- Upon entering the U.S. without permission, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings.
- Patel sought asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing harm from loan sharks if returned.
- Both the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief on all grounds, and Patel petitioned the Sixth Circuit for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus between risk and protected status (asylum/withholding) | Loan shark threats stem from membership in social groups: victims of extortion, and victims of threats by loan sharks | Threats arose from unpaid debts; no nexus to a protected group, just ordinary criminality | No nexus; claims denied |
| Cognizability of proposed social groups | Groups qualify as particular social groups under the law | Such groups are not legally cognizable as protected social groups | Board's doubts on groups' validity were appropriate |
| Government acquiescence (CAT claim) | Indian authorities would acquiesce to or ignore loan shark threats | No reports ever made; general country conditions insufficient to show likely acquiescence | No likely government acquiescence shown; CAT claim denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence (CAT claim) | General country reports prove inability or unwillingness to prevent torture | Requires particularized evidence of acquiescence to specific harm | General evidence inadequate; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz-Guzman v. Barr, 920 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 2019) (nexus requirement demands proof of persecutor’s motive based on protected group membership, not general criminal conduct)
- Sabastian-Andres v. Garland, 96 F.4th 923 (6th Cir. 2024) (finding insufficient nexus and proper denial even under less stringent standard)
- Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020) (describing Sixth Circuit’s less demanding withholding nexus standard)
- Marqus v. Barr, 968 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2020) (standard for CAT protection requires likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of a public official)
- Turcios-Flores v. Garland, 67 F.4th 347 (6th Cir. 2023) (generalized country evidence on government efforts insufficient for CAT claims)