Maria Arita-Deras v. Robert Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350

Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. in 2013 and later applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection based on membership in her husband Luis Pineda‑Vidal’s nuclear family.
She testified (credited by the IJ) that a gang leader, Ricardo, threatened her husband and family, killed multiple male relatives, left written and electronic death/kidnap threats against her and her son, and that Honduran police did not intervene.
Arita‑Deras submitted corroborating evidence: her affidavit, affidavits from relatives, burial permits, and death/burial certificates.
The IJ required corroboration, but discounted the affidavits because they said “gangs/enemies” rather than naming Ricardo, and because many were from family members and Pineda‑Vidal did not testify live; the IJ nonetheless found Arita‑Deras credible.
The IJ and Board concluded she had not suffered past persecution (finding no physical harm) and that she failed to show nexus to a protected ground; the Board adopted and supplemented the IJ’s reasoning.
The Fourth Circuit held the Board erred: it improperly discounted corroboration, used the wrong legal standard for past persecution (physical harm not required), and misapplied the nexus test, and remanded for reconsideration and application of the presumption of well‑founded fear.

Issue	Arita‑Deras' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of corroborating evidence	Affidavits, burial permits, and certificates reasonably corroborate her testimony; absence of the persecutor’s name and family relationship of affiants do not negate value	Corroboration insufficient because affidavits used generic terms ("gangs/enemies") and family affidavits are self‑interested; husband’s failure to testify live weakens evidence	Reversed: Board/IJ improperly discounted the documentary and affidavit evidence; naming the perpetrator was not necessary and family affidavits cannot be summarily rejected when consistent with credible testimony
Past persecution (requirement of physical harm)	Death and kidnap threats, together with killings of relatives, constitute past persecution without need for physical injury	IJ implicitly required physical harm or found only "isolated" mistreatment	Reversed: threats and pattern of violence qualified as past persecution; physical injury not required under controlling precedent
Nexus to protected ground (membership in nuclear family)	Threats and killings were motivated by and expressly tied to Pineda‑Vidal and his family; family membership was at least one central reason	Persecution was general criminal violence, not on account of family membership; applicant lacked specific knowledge of persecutor’s motive	Reversed: evidence shows family membership was at least one central reason; nexus satisfied

Zavaleta‑Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017) (death threats can constitute persecution; protected‑ground must be at least one central reason)
Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 2020) (physical injury not required to show persecution from death threats)
Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685 (4th Cir. 2008) (past persecution gives presumption of well‑founded fear and shifts burden to government)
Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2017) (membership in a nuclear family can be a particular social group)
Cardenas v. INS, 294 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (victim need not know persecutor’s name for persecution claim)
Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (identity of persecutor not required to establish nexus if other evidence links harm to protected ground)
Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) (corroboration may be required but must be reasonably tied to elements of the claim)
Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2009) (remand directions and application of presumption after showing past persecution)