N.L.A. v. Eric Holder, Jr., 744 F.3d 425

NL A, a Colombian landowner by family, fled to the U.S. after FARC threats and violence targeted her family; uncle killed and father kidnapped in 2003 as part of vacuna extortion; family went into hiding and moved houses, changed identities, and kept a low profile.
NL A and family sought asylum within one year of entering the U.S. on tourist visas; asylum claims were based on past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution on account of social group membership or political opinion.
Immigration Judge rejected past persecution as derivative to her father’s and found no credible future persecution; Board affirmed, and both treated social groups as not cognizable.
Evidence included direct threats to NL A’s family, including threats to kill her daughters if vacuna payments were not made; uncle’s murder and father’s kidnapping were held as linked to persecution of NL A.
The Seventh Circuit granted review, held that the harm to NL A’s father and uncle can constitute persecution of NL A herself (not merely derivative) and that landownership-based social groups are viable under the Act; the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court also found the Board erred in weighing hearsay and in assessing government acquiescence, and noted that relocation within Colombia does not defeat a well-founded fear of persecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the threat to NL A’s family sufficient for past persecution of NL A?	NL A suffered direct persecution via threats to family.	Threats to family are derivative to NL A’s claim and insufficient.	Yes; threats to family can amount to persecution of NL A.
Are land ownership-based groups cognizable social groups supporting asylum?	Landowners, especially educated landowners, form a cognizable social group.	Board found proposed groups too broad/undefined.	Yes; land ownership is a cognizable basis for a social group.
Did the Board properly assess government acquiescence?	Colombian government’s failures to protect indicate acquiescence.	Government efforts weaken FARC but do not prove acquiescence.	Board erred; government acquiescence found based on evidence of state weakness and FARC persistence.
Did NL A demonstrate well-founded fear of future persecution?	Past persecution creates presumption of fear; corroborated by ongoing FARC strength.	Lack of direct contact and relocation undermine fear.	Yes; the fear is objectively reasonable given ongoing FARC threat.
Was NL A’s persecution properly analyzed as derivative or by proxy?	Persecution by proxy through threats to family targeted NL A.	Claims labeled derivative should be dismissed.	Not derivative; persecution by proxy can support asylum.

Escobar v. Holder, 657 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2011) (describes Colombia conflict and FARC targeting landowners; state-like threat level)
Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005) (landowners as a cognizable social group when targeted by FARC)
Ciorba v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2003) (persecution of family members can constitute persecution of the applicant through imputed political opinion)
Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009) (persecution of a family member may constitute persecution of the applicant (persecution by proxy))
Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2013) (social group boundaries; immutability; broad categories allowed if nexus shown)