Jonathan Cruz-Guzman v. William P. Barr, 920 F.3d 1033

Cruz-Guzman, a native of El Salvador, fled after MS-13 threatened him for refusing recruitment and after the murder of a friend; he was apprehended entering the U.S. and conceded removability.
He applied for asylum claiming persecution by gangs (MS-13 and 18th Street) and asserted three proposed particular social groups: males targeted by MS-13 as informants; persons MS-13 imputed to be 18th Street members; and his nuclear family (the Cruz-Guzman family).
Evidence showed ongoing gang violence and extortion against Cruz’s family while his application was pending, including beatings of his mother and a rape threat to his sister after a missed protection payment.
The Immigration Judge found Cruz credible but denied asylum for failure to prove persecution “on account of” a protected ground; the Board affirmed, and Cruz petitioned for review in the Sixth Circuit.
The Board rejected the first proposed group for lack of social distinction, found Cruz not shown to be imputed 18th Street member, and concluded that attacks on his family were motivated by criminal extortion rather than animus toward the family.
The Sixth Circuit applied the substantial-evidence standard and denied review, holding Cruz failed to show persecution because of membership in a protected ground.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "males targeted by MS-13 as informants" is a particular social group	Cruz: targeted males form an immutable, distinct group	Gov: group lacks social distinction and is not cognizable	Held: Not a particular social group (lack of social distinction)
Whether Cruz was imputed to be an 18th Street member	Cruz: living in 18th Street territory caused MS-13 to view him as an 18th member	Gov: record shows MS-13 recruited him as unaffiliated; no imputation established	Held: Even if group exists, Cruz failed to show imputed membership
Whether the Cruz-Guzman nuclear family is a protected group and Cruz is a member	Cruz: family unit is a cognizable group and he is a member	Gov: family may be a group but persecution was criminal extortion, not family-based animus	Held: Family unit assumed cognizable, but Cruz failed to show persecution "on account of" family membership
Whether record compels finding persecutor motive tied to protected ground	Cruz: attacks on mother and threats referencing him show motive tied to family	Gov: more likely ordinary criminal extortion targeting many Salvadorans	Held: Substantial evidence supports Board’s conclusion that motive was criminal, not protected-ground animus; asylum denied

Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (government must be unwilling or unable to control private persecutors)
Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (elements of particular social group and causation analysis)
Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (proposed group of those threatened for refusing MS-13 recruitment not cognizable)
Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 688 (6th Cir. 2015) (clarifying particularity and social distinction requirements)
Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009) (family membership recognized as a possible particular social group)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (motive, not mere causation, is required to show persecution on account of a protected ground)
Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (motivation and causation standards in asylum claims)
Pablo-Sanchez v. Holder, 600 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2010) (Board may infer motive from circumstantial evidence; reversal only where evidence compels opposite conclusion)
Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2011) (criminal extortion is not persecution on account of a protected ground)
Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2016) (family-targeted extortion alone insufficient to show persecution based on family membership)
Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (similar rejection where extortion, not familial animus, explained targeting)