M-R-M-S
28 I. & N. Dec. 757 (2023)
Rule of Law:
If a persecutor targets members of a family as a means of achieving an ultimate goal unrelated to a protected ground, such as seizing land, the family membership is considered incidental or subordinate and is therefore not 'one central reason' for the harm required for asylum eligibility.
Facts:
- The respondents are a family who are natives and citizens of Mexico.
- A criminal cartel wanted the land where the family lived for its own purposes.
- The cartel forced the respondents off their land.
- The cartel also forced other, unrelated families off their land in the same area for the same reason.
- The cartel killed the lead respondent’s grandson for reasons the family believes were related to the cartel's efforts to obtain their land.
Procedural Posture:
- The respondents applied for asylum and withholding of removal in immigration court.
- The respondents claimed persecution based on their membership in a particular social group consisting of their family.
- The Immigration Judge conducted a hearing and denied the applications.
- The Immigration Judge found that the cartel was motivated by a desire to control the respondents’ land, not by their family membership.
- The respondents appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is family membership 'one central reason' for persecution under the Immigration and Nationality Act when a criminal organization targets a family primarily to achieve an independent goal, such as seizing their land?
Opinions:
Majority - Malphrus, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge
No, family membership is not 'one central reason' for persecution when a criminal organization's ultimate goal is unrelated to the family itself. To establish a nexus for a family-based asylum claim, an applicant must show the persecutor's motive is a desire to overcome the protected characteristic of the family or is otherwise based on animus against the family, not merely that the family was targeted as a means to another end. Here, the cartel’s primary motive was to obtain the respondents' land for its criminal enterprise, a goal it pursued against other landowners as well. The respondents' family status was merely incidental to their occupation of the desired land, making it a subordinate, not a central, reason for the harm they suffered. The Board explicitly adopts the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit, finding that when harm is contingent on complying with criminal demands (like surrendering land), the persecutor's motive is the criminal goal, not animus toward the family.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strengthens the Board of Immigration Appeals' stringent interpretation of the 'one central reason' standard for family-based asylum claims. It clarifies that harm motivated by a criminal organization's instrumental goals, such as territorial control or financial gain, does not meet the nexus requirement, even if a family unit is the target. By explicitly siding with the Tenth Circuit's more restrictive approach over the Fourth Circuit's broader view, the Board signals to immigration judges that claims involving mixed criminal and family motives should be scrutinized to ensure the family tie is not merely incidental. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for individuals fleeing generalized gang or cartel violence to win asylum based on their family membership.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: M-R-M-S (2023)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"