Wilfred Vasquez-Lopez v. Merrick B. Garland, 20-2097

Wilfred Vasquez-Lopez, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection and conceded removability; applied for asylum and withholding of removal after removal proceedings began.
He served one day a week as an unpaid auxiliary municipal employee at the mayor's appointment and, in that role, left a note and later led police to the home of suspected gang leader Nehemias.
Nehemias and associates later beat and threatened Vasquez-Lopez, saying it was because he brought police to Nehemias’s house; Vasquez-Lopez moved towns and ultimately fled Guatemala fearing further harm.
Vasquez-Lopez claimed persecution on account of an imputed anti-gang political opinion.
The IJ found Vasquez-Lopez credible but concluded the attackers were motivated by his civic actions (not an imputed political opinion), that he failed to show the government was unable/unwilling to control the gang, and that he could have relocated within Guatemala; the BIA summarily affirmed.
The Eighth Circuit denied review, holding the record did not compel a finding that a protected ground motivated the attack, and thus asylum and withholding were not met.

Issue	Vasquez-Lopez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the attack was persecution "on account of" an imputed political opinion	Attackers targeted him because they imputed an anti-gang/political stance due to his civic role	Attackers targeted him for performing unpaid civic duties and cooperating with police, not for a political belief	Court held the record does not compel that the attack was motivated by an imputed political opinion; asylum denied
Whether the persecutor acted with a protected ground (political opinion) as motive	Imputed political opinion arises from his role assisting police and municipal appointment	No evidence attackers believed he held a contrary political belief; threats tied to his actions, not politics	Court agreed with IJ that motive was non-political (civic duty), so protected-ground nexus lacking
Whether Vasquez-Lopez showed government inability/unwillingness to control persecutor or inability to relocate	Argued continued threats and prior violence justified fear and inability to relocate	IJ found insufficient proof of government inability/unwillingness and that internal relocation was possible; court did not reach these in depth	Court upheld IJ’s decision on nexus and declined to reach control/relocation because nexus failure was dispositive

Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2009) (asylum standard: persecution on account of protected ground)
De Brenner v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2004) (imputed political opinion concept)
Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2000) (attacks for being a police officer not necessarily political persecution)
Prieto-Pineda v. Barr, 960 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2020) (harassment for noncompliance with gangs did not establish political-opinion nexus)
Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240 (8th Cir. 2017) (withholding of removal requires higher burden than asylum)