Silvia Sandoval v. Merrick B. Garland, 20-4022

Background

Silvia Sandoval, a Salvadoran citizen, was threatened repeatedly by a neighbor, Maria, who was romantically jealous of Sandoval’s husband, Silas.
Threats escalated: Maria used intermediaries (including a gang member), threatened via family members, hopped a fence, shouted death threats, and later threatened with a knife.
Sandoval filed a police report and fled to the United States with her three children; Silas later joined them.
Sandoval and her children applied for asylum and withholding of removal, arguing persecution "on account of" membership in Silas’s family (a particular social group).
The Immigration Judge found Sandoval credible but concluded Maria’s actions were motivated by personal animus/romantic jealousy, not by animus against family membership; the BIA affirmed.
The Sixth Circuit majority affirmed the BIA under the substantial-evidence standard; Judge Moore dissented, arguing the record compelled a finding of familial nexus.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether threats were "on account of" membership in a particular social group (Silas’s family)	Maria targeted Sandoval because she was Silas’s wife and mother of his children; family membership was a central reason for persecution	Maria acted from romantic jealousy/personal animus, not because of family membership	No nexus found; substantial evidence supports BIA that motivation was personal animus, so asylum/withholding denied
Whether kinship with Silas is a cognizable "particular social group"	Kinship with Silas constitutes a protected social group	BIA assumed arguendo that family membership was cognizable but disputed nexus	Court assumed family membership could be cognizable for purposes of review but resolved case on lack of nexus
Effect of mixed motives on nexus	Mixed motives present; familial status was at least one central reason and thus satisfies asylum standard	Personal motive predominates; mixed motives do not establish protected-ground persecution here	Mixed motives doctrine acknowledged, but record not compelling; reasonable adjudicators not required to find familial motive
Standard for asylum vs withholding regarding motive	If familial status is a "central reason" for asylum, it also satisfies the weaker "a reason" standard for withholding	Government: neither asylum nor withholding burden met here	Majority applied substantial-evidence review and denied both claims; dissent argued record compels finding satisfying both standards

Key Cases Cited

Skripkov v. Barr, 966 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2020) (framework for asylum eligibility review)
Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (substantial-evidence review of BIA factual findings)
Marku v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 982 (6th Cir. 2004) (mixed motives and need for protected-ground to be a central reason)
Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2010) (simultaneous personal dispute does not eliminate nexus if protected-ground motive exists)
Zoarab v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2008) (cannot rely solely on personal matters to establish protected-ground persecution)
Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2009) (recognizing family membership as a cognizable social group)
Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr, 922 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2019) (nexus found where persecutor targeted petitioner because of relationship to spouse)
Enamorado-Rodriguez v. Barr, 941 F.3d 589 (1st Cir. 2019) (nexus found based on familial relationship motivating persecution)
Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing asylum’s "central reason" from withholding’s "a reason")
Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (definition and scope of "persecution")