Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265

Edith Vazquez-Guerra, a Mexican national, returned to Mexico in July 2015 to visit her ill mother after her brother was allegedly kidnapped by the Zetas in 2013.
She made multiple inquiries to police and local officials about her brother’s disappearance; she believes the Zetas killed him.
In September 2015 masked Zetas entered her home, pointed guns at her, and warned her to stop investigating; she was later followed and thereafter hospitalized after a nervous collapse.
The Zetas left written threats saying that if she continued investigating her brother "the same thing" would happen to her and her family; her daughter had not been directly threatened.
Vazquez-Guerra and her minor daughter fled to the U.S. in late September 2015 and applied for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming persecution on account of membership in the immediate family particular social group.
The IJ (found her credible) and the BIA denied relief, concluding the Zetas’ motive was to stop her investigation (criminal intent), not animus toward her family; the BIA affirmed and Vazquez-Guerra petitioned for review.

Issue	Vazquez-Guerra's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Nexus for asylum: whether harm/ threats were "on account of" membership in immediate family (particular social group)	Zetas targeted her because she was related to the kidnapped brother; but-for family ties she wouldn’t have investigated, so family membership is a central reason	Zetas targeted her to stop her investigation; motive was criminal (prevent inquiry), not animus against family membership	Court held substantial evidence supports finding no nexus; family membership was not one central reason for the threats
Past persecution: whether the incidents rise to past persecution	Threats, home invasion at gunpoint, and hospitalization amount to past persecution	Incidents were isolated harassment/intimidation and not persecution as defined	IJ’s and BIA’s finding that incidents did not rise to past persecution was not compelled to be reversed
Withholding of removal: whether she showed clear probability of future persecution on protected ground	Withholding requires nexus but is a higher standard; she argued nexus satisfied for withholding	Having failed asylum nexus, she cannot meet the higher withholding standard	Denied — failure to meet asylum nexus forecloses withholding as the more demanding standard

Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed Respondent, 829 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2016) (nexus requires protected ground be one central reason for persecution)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (refugee definition requires persecution on account of a protected ground)
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard: reversal only if evidence compels a contrary conclusion)
Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (lack of harm to family members in country undermines family-based nexus claims)
Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122 (4th Cir. 2017) (acknowledged circumstances where investigation-linked threats supported nexus)
Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2004) (criminally motivated threats/attacks do not establish persecution on a protected ground)
Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (withholding of removal requires showing it is more likely than not that persecution will occur)
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (generalized violence/instability is not a cognizable basis for asylum)