Mauricio Gonzalez Ruano v. William P. Barr
922 F.3d 346
7th Cir.2019Background
- Mauricio Gonzalez Ruano and his wife Catalina lived in Jalisco, Mexico (CJNG-controlled territory); CJNG leader Francisco Rivera began asserting control over Catalina, threatening that she "belonged to him."
- Rivera threatened Gonzalez Ruano in his shop, kidnapped and raped Catalina, and later Gonzalez Ruano was kidnapped, forced to witness two beheadings, tortured, and left for dead; the family fled to the U.S. and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.
- An immigration judge found Gonzalez Ruano credible and granted CAT relief (likelihood of future torture), but denied asylum for lack of nexus to a protected ground (particular social group), which the BIA affirmed.
- Gonzalez Ruano argued he was targeted "on account of" membership in his wife’s immediate family (a cognizable particular social group); government contended the harm stemmed from a personal dispute or the cartel’s desire to possess Catalina, not family membership.
- The Seventh Circuit concluded the record compels a finding that the persecution was at least in part because of Gonzalez Ruano’s membership in his wife’s immediate family and remanded to the BIA, granting the petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzalez Ruano’s persecution was "on account of" membership in a particular social group (wife's immediate family) | Persecutors targeted him because of his relationship to Catalina; family membership was a central reason for threats, kidnapping, torture, and ongoing risk | Persecution resulted from a personal vendetta or cartel’s desire to "possess" Catalina; family membership incidental | Court: Evidence compels finding of nexus to wife’s immediate family; asylum eligibility established |
| Whether a nuclear family can constitute a cognizable particular social group | Family membership is a recognized protected social group; Gonzalez Ruano is a member of Catalina’s immediate family | N/A (government did not contest cognizability below) | Court: Nuclear family can be a particular social group and government did not dispute cognizability here |
| Whether evidence of threats to other family members is required to show nexus | Not required; relationship explains why petitioner, not someone else, was targeted | Argues lack of threats/harm to other family members undercuts nexus | Court: Threats to others are relevant but not essential; record shows sufficient nexus |
| Standard of review: whether record compels reversal of IJ/BIA factfinding | Gonzalez Ruano: substantial-evidence standard met to compel different result | Government: IJ/BIA decision supported by record | Court: Reviewed IJ as supplemented by BIA; evidence compels reversal on nexus issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662 (7th Cir.) (standard for social-group nexus and review of factual findings)
- W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957 (7th Cir.) (family-membership nexus and substantial-evidence review)
- Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir.) (nuclear family membership supports asylum when family relationship explains targeting)
- Plaza-Ramirez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 282 (7th Cir.) (limitations where attack was isolated, mistaken identity, and record lacked nexus)
- Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616 (7th Cir.) (recognition that nuclear-family membership may constitute a particular social group)