Ruiz Varela v. Barr, 984 F.3d 122

Jose Cecilio Ruiz‑Varela, a Honduran national, worked at his father's successful pool hall after returning to Honduras in 2009.
Local National Police officers made extortionate demands of Ruiz and his father; the father refused and threatened to report them.
In late 2011 police at a checkpoint opened fire on Ruiz and a friend; Ruiz was shot and hospitalized; criminal charges were dropped and some officers were reassigned.
Ruiz and his father continued to receive police threats and harassment; Ruiz’s mother and siblings, who lived nearby, were not targeted.
Ruiz fled Honduras in 2012 and was placed in removal proceedings in the U.S.; he sought withholding of removal under INA §241(b)(3), asserting persecution on account of membership in his immediate family.
The IJ and the BIA denied withholding, finding Ruiz failed to show the police targeted him because of family membership; this Court denied review, upholding the BIA under the substantial‑evidence standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ruiz showed persecution "on account of" membership in a particular social group (immediate family)	Ruiz: police targeted him (and threatened his father) because of family ties and refusal to pay extortion, so family membership was a central reason	Gov't: record shows targeting driven by extortion/wealth or suspicion of running a roadblock, not animus toward family membership	Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ that family membership was not a central reason for persecution; withholding denied
Whether the agency decision should be overturned under the proper standard of review	Ruiz: BIA erred in its nexus finding and its reliance on inferences about who police knew/targeted	Gov't: BIA’s factual findings are entitled to substantial‑evidence deference; BIA adopted IJ’s findings	Held: Court applies de novo review to law and substantial‑evidence to facts; it upheld the BIA because the record does not compel a contrary conclusion

Loja‑Tene v. Barr, 975 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2020) (treat BIA and IJ decisions as one when BIA adopts IJ; defer to factfinding)
Aldana‑Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2014) (immediate family can be a particular social group but must be a central reason for persecution)
Tay‑Chan v. Holder, 699 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2012) (requiring a protected ground to be at least one central reason for persecution)
Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1993) (recognizing family membership as a possible protected ground)
Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2012) (record may not compel reversal where reasonable inferences support agency)
INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (defining the "on account of" nexus requirement)
Soeung v. Holder, 677 F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 2012) (legal de novo review; factual review under substantial‑evidence standard)
Yong Gao v. Barr, 950 F.3d 147 (1st Cir. 2020) (burden for withholding: past persecution or more‑likely‑than‑not future persecution)