Naranjo Garcia v. Wilkinson, No. 19-72803 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this case, the Knights Templar, a local drug cartel, murdered petitioner's husband, twice threatened her life, and forcibly took her property in retaliation for helping her son escape recruitment by fleeing to the United States. The Board assumed without explicitly deciding that petitioner's social groups, comprised of her family or property owners, were cognizable.
The Ninth Circuit held that substantial evidence does not support the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not persecuted "on account of" her membership in a particular social group. Under the panel's case law, it is sufficient under our mixed-motive precedent for the petitioner to show that a protected ground "was a cause of the persecutors' acts." Furthermore, the panel found Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d at 910, instructive and concluded that Parada indicates that such sweeping retaliation towards a family unit over time can demonstrate a kind of animus distinct from "purely personal retribution." The panel explained that the BIA erred in its nexus analysis for both petitioner's asylum claim and her withholding of removal claim. The panel remanded with instructions for the BIA to reconsider petitioner's asylum claim, and for the BIA to consider whether petitioner is eligible for withholding of removal under the proper "a reason" standard. The panel denied the petition as it relates to petitioner's claim for relief under CAT.
Court Description: Immigration Granting in part Alicia Naranjo Garcia’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel concluded that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Garcia was not persecuted on account of her membership in social groups comprised of her family or property owners. As an initial matter, because the Board assumed without explicitly deciding that Garcia’s social groups comprised of her family or property owners were cognizable, the panel assumed for the sake of argument that both social groups were cognizable. The panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Garcia failed to establish a nexus between her persecution and her status as a property owner. The panel explained that it read the Board’s decision as recognizing that property ownership was a cause—and moreover, the real reason— Garcia was targeted, but still found that she was not targeted “on account of” property ownership. The panel wrote that under this court’s case law, it is sufficient under mixed- motive precedent for the petitioner to show that a protected ground was a cause of the persecutors’ acts. NARANJO GARCIA V. WILKINSON 3 The panel held that the Board also erred in its analysis of nexus based on Garcia’s family association. Observing that there is a fine line between showing “animus” toward family, which does establish nexus, and “purely personal retribution,” which does not, the panel wrote that the Board’s analysis of this issue ignored pertinent and uncontroverted evidence. The panel wrote that sweeping retaliation towards a family unit over time, such as was the case here, can demonstrate a kind of “animus” distinct from “purely personal retribution.” The panel explained that such targeting is sufficient to demonstrate nexus if the petitioner shows via uncontradicted testimony that persecutors specifically sought out the particular social group of family. The panel remanded for the agency to clarify its asylum nexus determination, and to analyze in the first instance whether Garcia’s property ownership or family membership are cognizable social groups in this context, and whether the other elements of Garcia’s asylum claim were satisfied. The panel also remanded Garcia’s withholding claim because the Board’s decision was inconsistent with any serious analysis of the difference between the “one central reason” nexus standard for asylum relief, and the “a reason” standard for withholding relief. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s denial of CAT protection because Garcia failed to establish a clear probability of being tortured if returned to Mexico. 4 NARANJO GARCIA V. WILKINSON
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.