Odalis Chicas-Machado v. Merrick Garland, 73 F.4th 261

Petitioner Odalis Mireida Chicas-Machado, an El Salvador native, was an active member (and volunteer secretary) of a Pentecostal church and proselytized locally.
In 2015–2016 MS-13 members repeatedly harassed her; on Dec. 4, 2016 they tried to recruit her as a police "spotter," referring to her church ties as making her less suspicious; she refused and reported them to police.
On Dec. 6, 2016 gang members threatened to rape and kill her at her home; she fled El Salvador on Dec. 16 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in the U.S.
The IJ found her credible but denied relief; the BIA affirmed in a separate opinion, concluding the persecution lacked nexus to religion and that CAT was not shown; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision.
Majority (Motz, J.) held the BIA erred on nexus to religion (vacating/as to asylum/withholding and remanding); affirmed denial of CAT. Judge Agee concurred/dissented in part, arguing substantial evidence supported the BIA and warning against a broad nexus rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether persecution was "on account of" religion (asylum/withholding nexus)	Chicas-Machado: MS-13 targeted her because of membership/activity with the church; recruitment request and later threats show religion was at least one central reason	Gov./BIA: Gang sought her as an exploitable asset and later threatened her for refusing to be a spotter and for reporting them—motives independent of religion	Majority: BIA erred—religion was at least one central reason (reasons intertwined); reversed/remanded for further proceedings and rebuttal of presumption of future persecution
Cognizability/social-distinctness of proposed particular social groups	Chicas-Machado: two groups (those who refuse gang orders for moral/religious reasons; those who report gangs) are cognizable	BIA: groups not socially distinct/cognizable	Court: declined to resolve now; directed BIA to reevaluate these claims on remand after asylum determination
CAT claim — government acquiescence to torture	Chicas-Machado: police promise to act but failure to stop gang shows acquiescence; risk of future torture is more likely than not	Gov./BIA: No evidence of state collusion/acquiescence; officers tried to act and no proof they turned blind eye or colluded	Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA — denial of CAT protection affirmed

Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, 42 F.4th 443 (4th Cir. 2022) (outlines refugee/asylum elements reviewed here)
Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2005) (death threats qualify as persecution)
Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702 (4th Cir. 2018) (past persecution gives rebuttable presumption of future fear)
Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (rejected overly narrow nexus approach; family-ties nexus precedent relied on by majority)
Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122 (4th Cir. 2017) (retaliation/reporting to police does not necessarily negate nexus to a protected ground)
Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2019) (no nexus where threats followed refusal of gang recruitment and evidence did not tie persecution to protected ground)
Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 2015) (factored analysis for intertwined reasons for persecution)
Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2018) (family-ties nexus where persecution tied to relationship)
Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2019) (clarifies "central reason" nexus standard)
Cabrera Vasquez v. Barr, 919 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (substantial-evidence review of government acquiescence for CAT claims)