Seventh Circuit Tightens “Nexus” Showing for Gang-Recruitment Asylum Claims:
De Paz-Peraza v. Bondi (2025)

Introduction

Carlos Antonio de Paz-Peraza, a 17-year-old Salvadoran targeted by the violent MS-13 gang, fled to the United States in 2016 and sought asylum and withholding of removal. He claimed persecution as a member of the social group “young male Salvadorans.” Both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied relief, finding an insufficient nexus between the alleged persecution and the protected ground. On review, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—speaking through Judge St. Eve—upheld that decision. The ruling squarely addresses an increasingly common scenario: Central-American youths threatened by gangs who frame their resistance to recruitment as persecution “on account of” group membership. The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s view that MS-13 pursued de Paz-Peraza for recruitment and retaliation rather than because he belonged to a cognizable social group. By sharpening the “nexus” requirement and distancing recruitment-based threats from protected-ground persecution, the decision constrains future asylum claims that rely solely on demographic characteristics such as youth and gender.

Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that MS-13 targeted the petitioner to fill its ranks and retaliate for his refusal, not because he was a “young male Salvadoran.” Therefore, the nexus element of asylum and withholding was not met, and the petition was denied.
• Cognizable Group: The government assumed, arguendo, that “young male Salvadorans” could constitute a particular social group; the court expressly did not decide this unresolved question.
• CAT Claim: Abandoned on appeal; no ruling.
• Standard of Review: Highly deferential “substantial evidence” test— reversal only if evidence compels a different result (INS v. Elias-Zacarias).

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) – The foundational nexus case. The Supreme Court held that a guerrilla’s attempt to recruit the applicant did not, without more, constitute persecution on account of political opinion. De Paz-Peraza’s case is a modern mirror: MS-13 recruitment ≠ persecution for a protected ground.
2. Bueso-Avila v. Holder, 663 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2011) – Denied asylum where a gang recruited the applicant; cited here to show the circuit’s historical reluctance to equate recruitment threats with protected-ground persecution.
3. Granados Arias v. Garland, 69 F.4th 454 (7th Cir. 2023) – Clarified that asylum and withholding share the same nexus test. Anchors the court’s refusal to grant withholding after denying asylum.
4. W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2018) – Reiterated that a protected ground need only be a “central reason,” but still must be shown with specific proof. Provides analytical yardstick.
5. Hanaj v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2006) & Jamal-Daoud v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2005) – Define the stringent “substantial evidence” lens through which circuit courts review IJ fact-finding.
6. Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 666 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2012) – Cited for the distinction between persecution because of social status and purely instrumental violence to advance gang goals.
7. Orellana-Arias v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017) & Meraz-Saucedo v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2021) – Provide doctrinal scaffolding for nexus analysis and confirm the deferential standard.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Assumed Cognizability, Focused on Nexus. By stipulating—for argument’s sake—that “young male Salvadorans” might be a particular social group, the court sidestepped an unsettled area of asylum law and concentrated strictly on nexus. This technique prevented a potentially broad ruling on group cognizability and instead produced a narrow, fact-specific holding.

2. Recruitment Motive ≠ Protected-Ground Persecution. Evidence showed that gang members threatened to kill de Paz-Peraza unless he joined. The court interpreted this as recruitment/retaliation rather than persecution “on account of” demographic traits. The petitioner’s own testimony —“they wanted me to help them make money”—was fatal; it directly linked the threats to gang self-interest, not to hatred or animus toward young men per se.

3. Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient. While acknowledging that young men are statistically prime gang targets, the court deemed reports and anecdotal killings insufficient because they did not compel—not merely support—a contrary view. This reflects the Supreme Court’s directive in Elias-Zacarias that plausible alternative motives (here, gang self-interest) will defeat nexus unless the record unequivocally points to protected-ground persecution.

4. Withholding of Removal Collapses with Asylum. Because both forms of relief share the nexus element, failure on asylum automatically doomed withholding. The panel cited Granados Arias to re-confirm this doctrinal parity.

C. Likely Impact on Future Litigation

• Elevated Evidentiary Burden for Recruitment Cases. Applicants fleeing gang recruitment must now present direct or circumstantial proof that violence is at least centrally tied to a protected ground. Mere age-gender demographics and generalized gang violence will rarely suffice.
• Strategic Litigation Shift. Expect counsel to diversify protected-ground theories (e.g., family membership, political opinion expressed through anti-gang cooperation with police) rather than relying on broad demographic groups.
• Administrative Efficiency. By demonstrating a template for denying nexus on recruitment facts, the decision may accelerate IJ rulings and BIA summary affirmances in similar cases.
• Unanswered Question on Group Cognizability. The court declined to decide whether “young male Salvadorans” is a valid particular social group. Future claims could still litigate that issue, but they must concurrently marshal compelling nexus evidence.
• Consistency Across Circuits. The Seventh Circuit now aligns even more closely with the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, which have likewise rejected nexus when gangs recruit or retaliate irrespective of protected status.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Asylum vs. Withholding of Removal: Asylum is discretionary relief allowing legal residence; withholding merely bars deportation to a specific country and confers fewer benefits. Both require proof of persecution linked to a protected ground.
• Particular Social Group (PSG): A set of individuals who share an immutable characteristic, are socially distinct, and sufficiently defined (e.g., “family X” or “gay men in Iran”). Its exact contours remain heavily litigated.
• Nexus: Causal link between persecution and the protected ground. The protected ground must be a “central reason” for the harm.
• Substantial Evidence Standard: Appellate courts uphold agency findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result—an exceptionally deferential test akin to “clear error” review.
• Convention Against Torture (CAT): A separate form of protection requiring proof that government actors or those acting with their consent would more likely than not torture the applicant if removed.

Conclusion

De Paz-Peraza v. Bondi cements a rigorous application of the “nexus” requirement in gang-recruitment asylum claims within the Seventh Circuit. By holding that MS-13’s threats were fundamentally instrumental—designed to expand the gang’s criminal enterprise—rather than discriminatory, the court denied relief even to a credible, persecuted youth. The precedent underscores that a well-founded fear of generalized violence, without a clear protected-ground motive, does not fit within the Refugee Act’s statutory framework. Practitioners should glean that recruitment or extortion narratives must be accompanied by robust evidence tying the violence to the applicant’s social, political, religious, or other protected identity. Going forward, De Paz-Peraza will serve as a controlling reference point for IJs, the BIA, and counsel evaluating the viability of Central-American gang-related asylum petitions.