Ruiz-Escobar v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 252

Ruiz-Escobar, a Honduran national, was expelled in 2013 after signing a Record of Sworn Statement saying he had no fear on return; he reentered the U.S. later and in 2016 applied for withholding of removal (WOR) and CAT protection.
He alleged members of a narcotrafficking gang (Los Cachiros) killed or disappeared multiple relatives and that the gang targeted his family (land dispute and retaliation involving stepfather Camilo).
Evidence included Ruiz-Escobar’s and his sister’s affidavits, death certificates (lacking causes of death), country-condition reports, and testimony by his stepfather.
The IJ discounted parts of Ruiz-Escobar’s testimony, gave significant weight to the 2013 sworn statement, found the record insufficient to show persecution on account of family membership, and concluded internal relocation and Honduran prosecutions undercut the fear claim.
The BIA affirmed, rejecting due-process and credibility challenges and holding Ruiz-Escobar failed to show nexus between alleged harm and family membership; it also found death certificates and sister’s asylum grant not dispositive.
The First Circuit denied review, holding substantial evidence supported the BIA/IJ nexus finding and rejecting Ruiz-Escobar’s due-process claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nexus to protected ground (family membership) for WOR	Family membership was the reason gang targeted and killed relatives; past killings and threats show future risk	Evidence shows disparate motives (land, personal disputes), lack of corroboration, and arrests/prosecutions; plaintiff’s proofs speculative	Denied — substantial evidence supports finding no nexus; family membership not shown to be the root cause of harm
Past persecution sufficiency	Multiple relatives killed/disappeared by gang amount to past persecution creating rebuttable presumption	Death certificates lack cause-of-death; many deaths uncorroborated; motives tied to land or personal disputes	Denied — evidence did not compel finding of past persecution on account of family membership
Internal relocation and government protection	Relocation unsafe; police corrupt and gang influence pervasive	Los Cachiros leader convicted and imprisoned; plaintiff previously lived safely at times in Honduras	Denied — IJ/BIA reasonably found relocation possible and government action diminished risk
Due process (translation and admission of article)	Admitting Spanish article without written English translation and alleged interpreter error prejudiced proceedings	Interpreter provided oral translation; article was rebuttal and its content facially apparent; no showing translation affected outcome	Denied — no prejudice shown and any translation issues would not change independent nexus ruling

Tay-Chan v. Holder, 699 F.3d 107 (1st Cir.) (review of combined IJ/BIA opinions)
Singh v. Holder, 750 F.3d 84 (1st Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (burden for nexus and persecution)
Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (rejecting contrary factual findings absent compelling evidence)
Laurent v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 59 (1st Cir.) (same)
Ruiz v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.) (family membership must be root of persecution)
Morgan v. Holder, 634 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.) (speculation insufficient for nexus; need hard evidence)
Hernandez-Lima v. Lynch, 836 F.3d 109 (1st Cir.) (standard for WOR and nexus analysis)
Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (clear-probability standard for WOR stricter than asylum)
Matias v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.) (prejudice standard for mistranslation claims)
Teng v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (interpretation error must be shown to affect outcome)
Perlera-Sola v. Holder, 699 F.3d 572 (1st Cir.) (requirement to identify assailants/motives to establish nexus)
Giraldo-Pabon v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (claimant’s belief insufficient for nexus)
Marin-Portillo v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 99 (1st Cir.) (personal disputes or revenge do not establish family-based nexus)