In a case in which the agency assumed that family and landownership could serve as particular social groups for asylum purposes, the Ninth Circuit reversed the agency’s finding that these social groups were not one central reason for the harm the applicant suffered. The court noted that the agency found that both land ownership and family ties motivated the persecutors, and thus, the nexus analysis was legally erroneous.
“Garcia or members of her family similarly have experienced murder, specific death threats, forcible taking of property, attempted conscription, and retaliation for failed conscription. Furthermore, the timing of the persecution and statements by the persecutor may constitute circumstantial evidence of motive. The cartel in part targeted Garcia’s husband to obtain his property, but Garcia’s husband was still killed even after he had turned over the property deed, which suggests the cartel may have targeted him for reasons beyond the possibility of stealing his property. Beyond that, the cartel then sought out Garcia at her husband’s funeral, a uniquely family affair, threatening her so that she would remain silent about his death. The cartel sought out Garcia once again after she helped her son escape to the United States to avoid the Templars’ recruitment efforts. In this coercive effort, the Templars forced her from her home and took her property. Parada indicates that such sweeping retaliation towards a family unit over time can demonstrate a kind of animus distinct from purely personal retribution. This kind of targeting is sufficient to demonstrate nexus if the petitioner shows via uncontradicted testimony that persecutors specifically sought out the particular social group’ of his family.”
The full text of Naranjo Garcia v. Wilkinson can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/02/18/19-72803.pdf