Hector Daniel Aguilera-Gomez v. U.S. Attorney General, 21-10580

Petitioner Hector Aguilera-Gomez, a Honduran ex-military member, alleged drug traffickers repeatedly attacked and threatened him (three incidents culminating on Dec. 25, 2012 when his cousin was killed) after they sought his help obtaining weapons and selling drugs within the military.
He resigned from the Honduran military and left Honduras in April 2013, later filing an I-589 seeking asylum and withholding of removal, claiming membership in the particular social group "former law‑abiding Honduran soldiers."
Supporting evidence included a military service certificate, a death certificate for his cousin, news reports on gangs/drug trafficking in Honduras, and his sworn declaration and testimony describing the attacks and threats.
The IJ found Aguilera‑Gomez credible but concluded he did not show past persecution or a nexus to a protected ground (the attacks were recruitment/retaliation by traffickers, not animus toward soldiers); IJ also denied a Pereira-based motion to terminate for an allegedly deficient NTA.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial, agreeing there was no nexus to a protected ground; Aguilera‑Gomez appealed to this Court but did not administratively exhaust or timely brief the NTA/Pereira issue before the BIA.

Issue	Aguilera‑Gomez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Nexus: Were attacks "on account of" membership in a particular social group (former law‑abiding Honduran soldiers)?	He was targeted because he was (or had been) a soldier and thus a member of the claimed PSG.	Traffickers targeted him for forced recruitment and access to weapons/customers, not out of animus toward soldiers.	Agency decision affirmed: no nexus—attacks were recruitment/retaliation, not persecution for PSG membership.
Past persecution: Did the violence rise to the level of past persecution?	Three beatings and the fatal shooting of his cousin constitute past persecution.	The record lacks medical proof and details showing serious or permanent harm; evidence supports criminal recruitment/retaliation, not persecution.	Agency concluded petitioner did not establish past persecution (IJ/BIA agreed).
Notice to Appear / Jurisdiction (Pereira) and exhaustion	NTA lacked date/time/location so immigration court lacked jurisdiction per Pereira.	Petitioner failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA and abandoned it on appeal; circuit precedent holds such a deficiency does not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction.	Claim not considered on the merits: court precluded by failure to administratively exhaust and abandonment; Perez‑Sanchez controls on jurisdiction.

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (holding requirements for notice to appear relevant to certain statutory triggers)
Niz‑Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) (holding a notice to appear must be a single document for stop‑time rule purposes)
Perez‑Sanchez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019) (deficient NTA does not deprive immigration court of jurisdiction)
Rodriguez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2013) (violence tied to criminal activity or refusal to cooperate does not establish persecution on account of a protected ground)
Sanchez‑Castro v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2021) (protected ground must be a central reason for persecution)
Ruiz v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (standards for asylum: past persecution or well‑founded fear of future persecution)
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard that mere record support for contrary conclusion is insufficient to reverse agency)
Amaya‑Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies for judicial review)
Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (substantial‑evidence standard and viewing record in light most favorable to agency)
Perez‑Zenteno v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2019) (reversal of agency fact findings requires record to compel contrary conclusion)