Jose Zaldana Menijar v. Loretta Lynch, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22874

Zaldana is a Salvadoran citizen who entered the U.S. illegally, was removed in 2009, reentered in 2010, and sought withholding of removal and CAT protection in 2014.
He claimed membership in a particular social group: El Salvadoran male youth forced into violent gang activity and later long-term former gang members.
Zaldana testified to forced recruitment beginning around age 7, joining as a member by age 12, and multiple injuries, threats, and coercive acts including witnessing a friend's murder.
He described extortion, drug transportation duties, and punishments by the Mara 18 gang, including beatings and threats against family; police protection was ineffective.
The IJ denied relief for failure to prove social group social distinction and nexus, and CAT relief due to perceived lack of governmental acquiescence; the Board affirmed.
This court reviews for substantial evidence on factual findings and de novo on questions of law, upholding agency interpretations unless arbitrary or contrary to statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed social group has social distinction	Zaldana argues his group is socially distinct in Salvadoran society.	Board/ IJ held no social distinction for the group.	No social distinction found; substantial evidence supports denial.
Whether there is a nexus between the group and persecutory fear	Fear arises from status as former long-term gang member.	Fear not on account of protected ground; may be due to gang enforcement unrelated to status.	Lacked nexus; persecution not on account of a protected ground.
Whether government acquiescence or willful blindness by El Salvador supports CAT	Police corruption and government tolerance show acquiescence.	Government is attempting reforms and willful blindness not shown.	No clear probability of torture due to acquiescence; CAT denied.

Kouljinski v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for evaluating nexus to protected ground)
Pascual v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2007) (persecutor’s motive is critical for asylum eligibility)
Velasquez-Garcia v. Holder, 336 F. App'x 517 (6th Cir. 2009) (general crime does not equal persecution)
Amir v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2006) (acquiescence includes willful blindness)
Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2005) (government’s role in enforcement can negate acquiescence claim)
Elias-Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (persecution must be on account of a protected ground)