27 I. & N. Dec. 40
BIA2017Background
- Respondent, a Mexican national, fled to the U.S. after members of La Familia Michoacana repeatedly approached him and tried to coerce or abduct him to sell drugs at his father’s neighborhood store; his father had refused cartel demands and later paid extortion “rent.”
- The Immigration Judge found the respondent credible, concluded the cartel targeted him to gain access to the store (profit motive), and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; respondent appealed to the BIA.
- Parties agreed the respondent’s father’s immediate family qualifies as a particular social group for asylum purposes, but disputed whether the cartel’s motive was based on family membership (nexus).
- The BIA held that immediate family can be a cognizable particular social group, but membership alone does not establish nexus—family membership must be at least one central reason for the persecution.
- Applying the record, the BIA agreed with the IJ that the cartel’s primary motive was extortion/profit (targeting any store owner), not animus against the family; thus asylum was denied.
- The BIA remanded for further factfinding on the respondent’s CAT claim and allowed parties to address Barajas-Romero on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Respondent's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an immediate family can be a "particular social group" | Family (father’s immediate family) is a cognizable particular social group | Agreed family can be cognizable depending on facts | Held: Immediate family may constitute a particular social group (case-by-case) |
| Whether respondent proved nexus (persecutor targeted him "on account of" family membership) | The cartel targeted him because he was a member of his father’s family | The cartel targeted him to access the store and increase profits, not because of family ties | Held: No nexus—family membership was at most incidental; motive was extortion/profit |
| Whether family membership must be a central reason for harm | Family membership was the reason for targeting and future fear | Family membership must be at least one central reason, not incidental | Held: Membership must be "at least one central reason" under §208(b)(1)(B)(i) |
| Whether IJ made complete findings on CAT protection | IJ failed to fully analyze CAT-related facts | DHS urged dismissal on asylum ground but did not oppose remand for CAT findings | Held: Asylum claim dismissed; remanded for further CAT factfinding and consideration of Barajas-Romero |
Key Cases Cited
- Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir.) (recognizes family as possible particular social group)
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir.) (family can constitute particular social group)
- Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir.) (family membership recognized for particular social group analysis)
- Ayele v. Holder, 564 F.3d 862 (7th Cir.) (family targeted due to political/ethnic ties supports nexus)
- Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir.) (family membership may establish nexus when linked to alleged conduct)
- Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir.) (gang requests about family member insufficient, without more, to prove family-based nexus)
- Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822 (8th Cir.) (extortion for profit not nexus to family membership)
- Marin-Portillo v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 99 (1st Cir.) (threats as retaliation not necessarily because of family membership)