4 F.4th 213
4th Cir.2021Background
- Petitioner Sonia Araceli Perez Vasquez, a Honduran national, was repeatedly extorted and threatened by gang members after they learned she received monthly remittances from her husband in the U.S.; threats targeted her and her minor daughter and included death warnings if she did not pay.
- Petitioner paid extortion for several months (funded by her husband), reported to the police (no action), then fled to the U.S. with her daughter and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- At hearing the IJ credited Petitioner’s testimony, found her nuclear family a cognizable particular social group (PSG), but denied asylum/withholding for lack of nexus, concluding the gang was motivated by money rather than family status; CAT relief was denied.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ on nexus, declined to consider two new PSGs raised on appeal, and deemed the CAT issue waived for inadequate briefing; it also rejected a Pereira-based jurisdictional challenge.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the agency’s nexus ruling (finding membership in the nuclear family was at least one central reason for the persecution), vacated the removal order, remanded for further proceedings on asylum/withholding, and dismissed review of the CAT claim for lack of administrative exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petitioner was persecuted "on account of" membership in her nuclear family (nexus) | Vasquez: gang targeted her because they knew her husband in the U.S. sent her money; family membership was at least one central reason for targeting | Gov: gang targeted her for money (monetary motive), not because of family status; no nexus to PSG | Reversed agency; membership in nuclear family was at least one central reason for persecution and nexus established |
| Whether IJ/BIA misapplied nexus by focusing on why the family was targeted instead of why Petitioner was targeted | Vasquez: relevant question is why Petitioner, not others, was targeted—her spouse’s remittances made her the target | Gov: agency permissibly assessed motive as monetary and declined nexus | Court: IJ/BIA erred legally by asking wrong question; must ask why petitioner was targeted and consider intertwined motives |
| Whether Notice to Appear defect under Pereira deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction | Vasquez: NTA lacked date/time; Perez argues jurisdictional defect under Pereira | Gov: Cortez controls, NTA defect does not deprive court of jurisdiction | Rejected Pereira argument; Cortez controls—no jurisdictional defect |
| Whether CAT claim can be reviewed by the federal court | Vasquez: argues entitlement to CAT relief | Gov: Petitioner failed to adequately raise CAT claim before the BIA | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies on CAT claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez-Cartagena v. Barr, 977 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2020) (instructs nexus analysis must focus on why petitioner—not the family—was targeted)
- Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2018) (rejects agency focus on family-level targeting instead of individual nexus)
- Alvarez Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236 (4th Cir. 2019) (explains "at least one central reason" standard for nexus)
- Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizes nuclear family as a prototypical cognizable PSG)
- Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53 (4th Cir. 2015) (holds extortion can constitute persecution)
- Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017) (addresses motivation as classic factual question and cautions against requiring persecutors to articulate legal reasons)
- Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122 (4th Cir. 2017) (discusses nuclear family PSG and limits on reliance on irrelevant family-member threats)
- United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019) (holds Pereira NTA defect does not deprive immigration court of jurisdiction)