Elvira Cano v. William P. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034

Meza, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. in Sept. 2014 and conceded removability; she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
She claimed membership in the particular social group “immediate family members of Alberto Jorge Gonzalez Meza” (her son).
In Aug. 2014 masked men beat and kidnapped Alberto in Actopan while Meza was present; one man pointed a gun at Meza and threatened to kill her if she went to the police; Alberto later was found dead.
Meza believes the Zetas control Actopan and that local officials (including the town president and police) are complicit; she declined to file police reports and received anonymous inquiries about her whereabouts.
The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed. Meza petitioned for review in the Eighth Circuit, which denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Past persecution for asylum	Meza: threatened at gunpoint during son’s kidnapping and family inquiries amount to past persecution tied to her family status	Gov: events were robbery/harassment; threats were unfulfilled, non‑specific, and insufficiently menacing; no government condonation shown	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA: no past persecution established
Well‑founded fear / Withholding of removal	Meza: fears future targeting by cartel and cannot safely relocate in Mexico	Gov: fear not objectively reasonable; no pattern tying harm to Meza; she could relocate; withholding standard not met	Denied — no well‑founded fear and withholding (higher standard) not satisfied
Whether family member’s harm = direct persecution of petitioner	Meza: Alberto’s extortion, kidnapping, and death demonstrate persecution of his immediate family	Gov: violence targeted Alberto as an extortion/business victim, not because of family status; isolated incidents not tied to Meza	Denied — court: family harm can show persecution only if a pattern tied to petitioner exists; none shown here
CAT protection (torture)	Meza: likely to be tortured by cartels with official acquiescence if removed	Gov: no evidence torture is more likely than not; no proof of official acquiescence; no separate CAT grounds distinct from asylum claim	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA: no likelihood of torture nor shown official acquiescence

Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (review standard for BIA decisions)
De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2013) (substantial evidence review of asylum/withholding/CAT denials)
Malonga v. Holder, 621 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2010) (definition of persecution requires harm on account of protected characteristic)
La v. Holder, 701 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (threats must be menacing, specific, and immediate to constitute persecution)
Ahmadshah v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2005) (family violence may show persecution only if pattern tied to petitioner)
Jalloh v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2005) (isolated violence insufficient to show persecution tied to petitioner)
Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing criminal extortion from persecution on account of protected characteristic)
Sheikh v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2005) (narrow definition of torture requiring official involvement or acquiescence)
Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (separate CAT analysis required only when grounds differ from asylum/withholding)
Mejia-Ramos v. Barr, 934 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard: reversal only if evidence compels contrary finding)