Luz Cantillano Cruz v. Jefferson Sessions III
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4373
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cantillano Cruz, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. in July 2014 with her minor son and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after conceding removability.
- Her claim: she was persecuted and feared future persecution because she was a member of the "nuclear family of Johnny Martinez" (her domestic partner), who disappeared after working for Danny Avila, an organized-crime associate.
- Evidence: Martinez told Cruz he planned to quit due to Avila’s criminal activity; Martinez disappeared after a fishing trip; Cruz and Martinez’s uncle confronted Avila; Avila threatened them, later threatened Cruz and her children, brandished/fired weapons at her home, killed the family dogs, and made repeated threats over ~two years.
- The IJ found Cruz credible and recognized the nuclear-family social group, but concluded Avila’s primary motive was to deter her from reporting him to police, not her family membership, and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The BIA affirmed, treating Avila’s actions as private-actor crime-related harm insufficiently linked to a protected ground. Cruz petitioned for review; this Court granted review and stayed removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz established nexus (persecution "on account of" membership in Martinez’s nuclear family) | Cruz: her family ties were intertwined with and at least one central reason for Avila’s threats — she was targeted because she was Martinez’s partner and knew of Avila’s crimes | Government: threats aimed to deter reporting to police; any interested person could have been targeted, so family membership was not a central reason | Court: Nexus satisfied — family membership was at least one central reason for persecution; BIA/IJ applied an unduly narrow analysis and erred |
| Whether IJ/BIA properly weighed circumstantial evidence of persecutor’s motive | Cruz: timing, repeated threats at family home, expert testimony, and knowledge from Martinez compel inference Avila suspected she learned from Martinez | Gov: same objective explanation (preventing police reports) justified BIA/IJ conclusion | Court: The BIA/IJ erred by focusing on the immediate stated motive and ignoring the intertwined role of family relationship; record compels conclusion favoring Cruz |
| Whether threats amounted to persecution sufficient for asylum/withholding | Cruz: repeated, home-centered threats, weapons/firearms, killings of dogs, and ongoing intimidation constitute persecution and future fear | Gov: episodic threats tied to crime do not show persecution on protected-ground basis | Court: Past persecution established and was on account of family membership; remanded for further proceedings on relief |
| Whether to adjudicate CAT claim | Cruz: CAT relief separately asserted | Gov: IJ found insufficient evidence of likely torture; BIA affirmed | Court: Did not decide CAT sufficiency; remanded so BIA should reconsider CAT if asylum/withholding denied on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (nexus can be established where family relationship and actor’s stated motive are intertwined)
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (defines statutory "one central reason" nexus standard)
- Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 2015) (multiple central reasons may motivate persecution; immediate trigger does not negate nexus)
- Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009) (membership is not a basis when merely incidental or subordinate)
- Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2014) (remand required where BIA failed to consider family-motivated threats over time)
- Temu v. Holder, 740 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 2014) (factual motivation is a classic factual question; inconsistencies can compel review)
- Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing BIA factual findings)
- Tang v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (withholding of removal requires higher showing than asylum)
- Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004) (asylum denial implies withholding denial when nexus not met)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (deference principles for agency interpretations)