998 F.3d 1281
11th Cir.2021Background
- Sanchez-Castro, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. in 2012 and conceded removability; she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- She claimed persecution as a member of a particular social group defined as her nuclear family whose father lives in the U.S., arguing MS-13 targeted them because the father’s U.S. residence made them appear wealthy.
- She testified to extortion, threats of rape and murder, attempted kidnappings, sexual harassment, theft, and police nonresponse; some extended relatives later suffered gang violence.
- The immigration judge found her credible but denied relief, concluding her harms did not meet past persecution, were tied to general gang criminality, and she failed the CAT acquiescence showings.
- The BIA affirmed on nexus grounds (distinguishing animus against a family per se from targeting a family as a means to extortion); after remand and the Attorney General’s Matter of L‑E‑A‑ decision, the BIA readopted its ruling.
- The Eleventh Circuit denied review, holding substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings on nexus for asylum/withholding and on lack of government acquiescence for CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Sanchez‑Castro's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus for asylum/withholding: whether persecution was "on account of" family membership | Gang targeted family because father abroad made them a distinct family group and thus family status was a central reason | Gang targeted family for money and general criminal reasons, not because of family identity | Substantial evidence supports BIA that nexus fails; harms tied to extortion/criminality, not animus against family |
| Whether extortion-as-means satisfies nexus (means-to-end vs animus) | Targeting the family as means to extort still makes family membership a central reason for the harm | Means-to-end extortion is incidental to family identity and does not satisfy nexus | Court adopts BIA distinction: extortion for funds is not persecution because of family status |
| CAT: government acquiescence to torture | Police ignored calls and thus acquiesced; likely torture on return | Salvadoran government fights gangs; inability to control gangs is not acquiescence | Substantial evidence supports BIA that acquiescence not shown; police efforts (and gang spotters) undermine acquiescence inference |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez‑Sanchez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019) (nexus satisfied where extortion was tied to a cartel’s specific grievance against family)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir.) (definition of "central reason" and limits on incidental/superficial motives)
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (harm consistent with ordinary criminality does not establish persecution on protected ground)
- INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (nexus requires motive tied to protected ground)
- Rivera v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 487 F.3d 815 (11th Cir. 2007) (extortion to raise funds is not persecution because of family relationships)
- Cambara‑Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2016) (wealth‑motivated extortion is not "because of" family status)
- Hernandez‑Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (contrasting approach treating family relationship as sufficient where threat targets parent to recruit child)
- Orellana‑Recinos v. Garland, 993 F.3d 851 (10th Cir. 2021) (rejects expansive nexus approach used by Fourth Circuit)
- Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2017) (characterizing some gang violence as general extortion/gang crime)
- Fahim v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 278 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for CAT claims)
- Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (government inability to stop gangs is not acquiescence)
- Reyes‑Sanchez v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (police failure to catch perpetrators does not prove acquiescence)