Sindy Alvarez Lagos v. William Barr, 927 F.3d 236

Background

Sindy Marilu Alvarez Lagos and her then-7-year-old daughter fled Honduras after Barrio 18 gang member “Chuta” extorted Alvarez Lagos, threatened to kidnap, rape, mutilate, and kill them when she could not pay, and continued to inquire about her whereabouts after she fled.
Alvarez Lagos testified credibly at removal proceedings and introduced expert declarations (Dr. Boerman, Dr. Manwaring) explaining that unmarried mothers in Honduras are particularly vulnerable to gang violence and that refusal to pay can be perceived as political opposition to gang rule.
She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); an IJ denied all claims, the BIA affirmed, the Fourth Circuit remanded for nexus reconsideration, and the BIA again denied nexus; the government later conceded the agency had overlooked material evidence.
The IJ and BIA repeatedly focused on extortion and general gang activity as the central motive, often omitting or mischaracterizing expert testimony and Alvarez Lagos’s gender-based threat evidence.
The Fourth Circuit found (1) the agency failed to consider material evidence on nexus and CAT acquiescence, (2) the unrebutted record compels reversal on the nexus issue, and (3) the protected-ground and CAT issues require remand for the BIA to address in the first instance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nexus for asylum/withholding (one-central-reason)	Status as unmarried mother and imputed anti-gang political opinion were at least one central reason for threats; experts and testimony show gang targeted her for those reasons	Board: primary motive was extortion/money; gang extorts broadly so no nexus	Court: Reverse BIA on nexus — undisputed record evidence compels finding that protected grounds were at least one central reason; remand for further proceedings on other issues
Particular social group (unmarried mothers under gang control)	Group is immutable, particular, and socially distinct; experts and testimony support that unmarried mothers are especially targeted	IJ: group not particular, too large, defined by past experience; Board did not defend	Court: Vacate and remand for BIA to analyze particularity and social distinction (IJ made legal errors)
Imputed political opinion	Gang would view refusal to pay/flight as political opposition and punish her to demonstrate power; experts testified to this perception	IJ analyzed plaintiff’s actual beliefs and political activity instead of persecutor’s perception	Court: Vacate and remand for BIA to analyze imputed political opinion from persecutor’s perspective (IJ misapplied law)
CAT relief (likelihood of torture and government acquiescence)	Credible testimony and expert evidence show likely severe future harm and police collusion/acquiescence in neighborhood	IJ relied on generalized country reports and dismissed individualized evidence as speculation	Court: Vacate and remand; IJ/BIA failed to engage legally significant, unrebutted evidence and must address safe relocation issue too

Key Cases Cited

Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 2015) (defines "one central reason" nexus standard and holistic analysis)
Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122 (4th Cir. 2017) (rejects excessively narrow nexus focus on immediate trigger)
Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2018) (applies nexus standards for asylum/withholding)
Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017) (gang targeting of particular individuals may satisfy nexus despite broad criminality)
Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) ("at least one central reason" formulation applied)
Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (individualized claim not negated by widespread criminal activity)
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand to agency is usual course when BIA errs)
Cruz-Quintanilla v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 884 (4th Cir. 2019) (CAT elements summarized: likelihood of torture and government acquiescence)