Marín-Portillo v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 99

Marin, a Guatemalan national, fled to the U.S. after a police officer, Edgar Cuellar, killed Marin’s father (2006) and later threatened to kill Marin and other family members after release from prison.
Marin entered the U.S. without inspection in March 2011; removal proceedings began in May 2011. He conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
The IJ assumed Marin was credible but denied relief; the BIA affirmed in part and rejected Marin’s claims on nexus grounds. Marin petitioned for review to the First Circuit.
Marin argued persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on membership in his family (a proposed particular social group) and that the BIA failed to consider his youth in assessing severity.
The BIA and IJ found the threats were motivated by a personal dispute (revenge/deterrence by Cuellar), not by an enumerated ground (e.g., family membership), so no nexus to a protected ground was established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether threats/harassment constituted past persecution	Marin: threats and killing of father show past persecution of family members	Gov: threats were personal retaliation, not persecution on protected ground	Held: Even assuming severity, threats stemmed from personal dispute, not protected-ground nexus; past persecution claim fails
Whether threats implicate membership in a particular social group (family)	Marin: targeting of family shows persecution on account of family membership	Gov: motives were vengeance/deterrence, not family-based persecution	Held: Nexus lacking; targeting for revenge does not equate to persecution on account of family membership
Whether Marin has a well-founded fear of future persecution	Marin: threats and Cuellar’s release make future harm likely	Gov: same lack of nexus undermines future fear claim	Held: Claim rejected; nexus analysis disposes of future-persecution claim
Whether BIA failed to consider Marin’s age in severity analysis	Marin: BIA should have accounted for youth in evaluating persecution severity	Gov: severity/nexus analysis was adequate	Held: Court did not reach age-specific argument because lack of nexus was dispositive

Dimova v. Holder, 783 F.3d 30 (discussing review when BIA adopts parts of IJ opinion)
Tobon-Marin v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 28 (standard for substantial-evidence review in asylum cases)
Butt v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 86 (past persecution vs. well-founded fear frameworks)
Nelson v. INS, 232 F.3d 258 (persecution must exceed harassment/basic suffering)
Sompotan v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 63 (events from personal disputes generally lack nexus)
Costa v. Holder, 733 F.3d 13 (distinguishing reprisals for specific acts from status-based persecution)
Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (family-membership persecution where petitioners targeted due to relation to wealthy father)
Aguilar-Solis v. INS, 168 F.3d 565 (asylum standard easier to meet than withholding of removal)