Reyes-Mendez v. Lynch, 629 F. App'x 757

Background

Reyes-Mendez, a Mexican national from Yecuatla, Veracruz, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2000 and was placed in removal proceedings after a 2010 arrest. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
He and his uncles (family-run hardware/construction businesses) were subject to extortion threats by the Zetas cartel; the Zetas had asked about him by name.
IJ credited his testimony and corroborating affidavit and country reports documenting Zetas violence and corruption, but denied relief: asylum untimely; withholding denied for lack of nexus to a protected ground or alternatively because internal relocation in Mexico was reasonable; CAT denied for lack of individualized torture risk.
The BIA affirmed, adopting the IJ’s nexus reasoning and alternative relocation ground; the government sought a remand to reconsider nexus in light of circuit precedents, but on remand the BIA left its nexus analysis unchanged and reiterated the relocation ruling.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision, agreed the Board inadequately analyzed social-group nexus but found substantial evidence supports the BIA’s alternative conclusion that Reyes-Mendez could reasonably relocate within Mexico, and denied the petition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether membership in the Reyes family is a cognizable particular social group and whether persecution would be on account of that membership	Reyes-Mendez: family is identifiable and central reason for extortion; Zetas already asked about him by name	BIA/IJ: extortion targeted victims for money/wealth, not kinship; proposed broader groups not cognizable	Court: family can be a protected group and BIA did not adequately analyze nexus, but remand issue moot due to relocation ruling upheld
Whether persecution would be on account of political opinion	Reyes-Mendez: opposition to Zetas/presence of anti-cartel views	BIA/IJ: no evidence Zetas would target him as political actor based on application	Held: insufficient evidence of persecution on account of political opinion
Whether internal relocation within Mexico is reasonable and possible	Reyes-Mendez: Zetas have broad presence; he is dependent on family and has never lived apart	BIA/IJ: Mexico large; Zetas’ reach not absolute; he is a single, skilled adult who could relocate	Held: substantial evidence supports that reasonable relocation is possible; relocation requirement satisfied by BIA (petition denied)
Whether CAT protection applies (risk of torture)	Reyes-Mendez: country reports show torture occurs and cartel corrupts authorities	BIA/IJ: general reports insufficient without individualized risk showing he would be singled out	Held: CAT claim fails for lack of evidence he would be specifically targeted for torture

Key Cases Cited

Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005) (precedent on nexus and social-group analysis)
Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (internal-relocation and social-group analysis guidance)
Shaikh v. Holder, 702 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for particular social group nexus)
Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2014) (family membership can be basis for persecution even if motive linked to wealth)
Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2014) (family need not be tied to another protected ground to be a group)
Oryakhil v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal-relocation analytical framework)
N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for agency factfinding)
Lenjinac v. Holder, 780 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2015) (reports of general torture insufficient without individualized risk)
Jan v. Holder, 576 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2009) (CAT requires showing likely individualized torture)
Ren v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2006) (permitting remand practice discussion)
Duarte-Salagosa v. Holder, 775 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2014) (jurisdictional limits over certain BIA determinations)