Introduction

This unpublished Sixth Circuit decision addresses three recurring questions in gang‑related protection claims from Central America: (1) whether a proposed “particular social group” (PSG) that incorporates the fact of being victimized by crime is cognizable; (2) how the asylum/withholding “nexus” requirement is proven when petitioners belong to an ethnic group that allegedly suffers disproportionate harm; and (3) whether a Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim that was not presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) can be reviewed on petition.

Petitioners Cristian and Kevin Macario‑Tzoc, indigenous Maya Quiché siblings from Guatemala, fled with their mother after gangs extorted their family’s tortilla business and escalated threats and violence. They sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the BIA dismissed their appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review.

Though non‑precedential, the opinion reinforces two practical rules: (i) adding an ethnic descriptor does not fix a PSG that is circularly defined by victimization (e.g., “family members of extortion victims”), and (ii) evidence that a large segment of a country’s population suffers disproportionate socioeconomic harm or exposure to crime does not, without more, establish that the persecutor’s motive in a particular case was the victim’s protected status. The court also underscores ordinary appellate constraints: substantial‑evidence review for nexus findings and the exhaustion bar for unpresented CAT claims.

Summary of the Opinion

• PSG Cognizability: The proposed PSG—“Indigenous Maya Quiche family members of victims of extortion”—is not cognizable because it is circularly defined by the harm (“victims of extortion”). The addition of “Indigenous Maya Quiche” does not cure circularity, and the BIA separately considered indigeneity but found no link to persecution.
• Nexus (Asylum and Withholding): Even assuming indigeneity is a protected ground, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding of no nexus. Petitioners’ argument that indigenous persons face disproportionate harm does not establish that these particular gangs targeted them on account of their indigenous identity. The record instead showed generalized extortion affecting “everyone in the area.”
• Asylum Standard Not Misapplied: The BIA did not demand an “exclusive” motive; it applied the correct standards—“one central reason” for asylum and “because of” for withholding—and found no evidence that ethnicity motivated the harm.
• Withholding Probabilistic Assessment: Because petitioners failed to establish nexus, the BIA was not obligated to analyze the likelihood of future persecution for withholding.
• CAT Claim: The CAT theory was not presented to the BIA on appeal (petitioners dropped it), so there was nothing for the court to review.
• Disposition: Petition for review denied.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Standards of Review: Hernandez‑Hernandez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 685, 687 (6th Cir. 2021) (BIA’s legal conclusions de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence). Juan Antonio v. Barr, 959 F.3d 778, 788 (6th Cir. 2020) (review IJ decision where the BIA adopts it).
• PSG Cognizability & Circularity:
  • 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (refugee definition).
  • Juan Antonio, 959 F.3d at 789–90 (PSG requires an immutable, fundamental characteristic and may not be circularly defined by persecution).
  • Navas‑Medina v. Barr, 833 F. App’x 631, 633–34 (6th Cir. 2020) (non‑cognizable PSG defeats withholding claim).
  • Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 551, 556 (6th Cir. 2005) (asylum‑seekers cannot define the group by the persecution feared).
  • Torres v. Sessions, 728 F. App’x 584, 585–87 (6th Cir. 2018); Soto‑Ambrocio v. Sessions, 724 F. App’x 456, 458 (6th Cir. 2018) (modifiers like “Mexican Nationals” or “young women from Guatemala” do not fix circularity).
  • Aviles‑Solano v. Bondi, No. 24‑3610, 2025 WL 918461, at *5 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (rejecting a group defined by persecution and threats).
• Record‑Based Adjudication and Cautionary Remand Precedent: Tista‑Ruiz de Ajualip v. Garland, 114 F.4th 487, 496–500 (6th Cir. 2024) (remand when BIA relied on overturned authority and failed to consider the whole record). Here, by contrast, the BIA cited current law and assessed the application “on the record as a whole,” aligning with Zometa‑Orellana v. Garland, 19 F.4th 970, 979 (6th Cir. 2021).
• Nexus and Burdens:
  • 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (substantial evidence; reversal only if any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise).
  • Cruz‑Guzman v. Barr, 920 F.3d 1033, 1037 (6th Cir. 2019) (nexus requires showing that the protected ground motivated the persecution).
  • Patel v. Bondi, 131 F.4th 377, 381–82 (6th Cir. 2025) (asylum requires protected ground be “one central reason”; withholding requires persecution “because of” protected status).
  • Guzman‑Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253, 270 (6th Cir. 2020) (asylum’s “one central reason” standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
  • Sebastian‑Sebastian v. Garland, 87 F.4th 838, 846–47 (6th Cir. 2023) (nexus is a factual determination reviewed for substantial evidence).
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (cited by analogy to caution against conclusory assertions).

Legal Reasoning

1) PSG: Circularity and the Limits of “Fixing” with Modifiers. The court agreed with the BIA that “Indigenous Maya Quiche family members of victims of extortion” is not a cognizable PSG because it is defined in part by the very harm feared (“victims of extortion”). Sixth Circuit law consistently holds that a PSG cannot be circular—i.e., the group must be defined by a characteristic independent of the risk of persecution. Petitioners argued that adding the ethnic marker “Indigenous Maya Quiche” cured the circularity. The court disagreed for two reasons: (i) a descriptive modifier does not automatically fix circularity, as prior cases show, and (ii) even treating indigeneity as a distinct characteristic, the BIA explicitly considered it and found no connection between that status and the harm in the record.

2) Nexus: No Inference from Generalized Risk or Population‑Level Disparities. For both asylum and withholding, petitioners had to show motive—why the gangs harmed them. The court emphasized that the record showed generalized extortion affecting “everyone in the area,” reflecting economically motivated criminality rather than targeting tied to protected characteristics. Petitioners’ attempt to reason from population‑level disparities (indigenous people face disproportionate disadvantages; gangs disproportionately target them) did not suffice to prove that, in this case, the gangs acted “because of” petitioners’ indigeneity or that indigeneity was “one central reason.” Under substantial‑evidence review, the absence of record evidence tying motive to ethnicity compelled affirmance.

3) Correct Application of Asylum Standard (No “Exclusive Reason” Requirement). Petitioners contended the BIA erroneously required their protected status be the exclusive reason for harm. The court rejected this mischaracterization, noting the BIA applied the proper standards—“one central reason” for asylum and “because of” for withholding—and simply found no evidence of any protected‑ground motive at all. Hence, the BIA did not overlook mixed‑motive possibilities; it found no protected motive in the mix.

4) Withholding Probability Analysis is Unnecessary Without Nexus. Petitioners faulted the BIA for not assessing the likelihood of future persecution on withholding. The Sixth Circuit held that where nexus fails (the “because of” element is not met), the agency need not proceed to the probabilistic component. Nexus is an essential element; without it, further analysis is moot.

5) CAT: Issue Not Preserved. Because petitioners abandoned their CAT claim before the BIA, there was no CAT issue for the court to review. The panel therefore found no BIA error in not addressing a claim that was not presented.

How Prior Cases Shaped the Outcome

• Rreshpja; Torres; Soto‑Ambrocio; Aviles‑Solano: These decisions supply the through‑line on PSG circularity: a group may not be defined by the harm feared, and adding descriptors (e.g., sex, nationality) does not transform a harm‑defined group into a cognizable one. The panel applied that framework to conclude that adding “Indigenous Maya Quiche” did not cure the “family members of victims of extortion” circularity.
• Juan Antonio; Navas‑Medina: These cases anchor the Sixth Circuit’s PSG analysis (immutability/fundamental characteristic and non‑circular definition) and the consequences of non‑cognizability for protection claims. The panel invoked Juan Antonio as the controlling articulation of PSG requirements and non‑circularity.
• Tista‑Ruiz de Ajualip and Zometa‑Orellana: The court took care to distinguish this case from Tista‑Ruiz, where a remand was required because the BIA relied on overturned authority and failed to consider the entire record. Here, the BIA cited current law and assessed the record as a whole, satisfying Zometa‑Orellana’s framework.
• Patel; Guzman‑Vazquez; Cruz‑Guzman; Sebastian‑Sebastian: Together, these decisions define the nexus standards (asylum’s “one central reason” versus withholding’s “because of”), clarify that motive is a fact question reviewed for substantial evidence, and emphasize the need for case‑specific evidence tying harm to a protected characteristic.
• Twombly (by analogy): The panel’s citation underscores that conclusory assertions—such as broad claims that gangs target indigenous persons—cannot substitute for record evidence of motive in the petitioners’ case.

Impact and Practical Implications

1) PSG Pleading and Proof: Litigants in gang‑extortion cases should avoid PSG formulations that embed victimization (e.g., “family members of extortion victims,” “people who refuse gang payments”). Such formulations are vulnerable to circularity challenges. Adding demographic or ethnic descriptors will not salvage a harm‑defined group. If petitioners pursue a non‑circular group (e.g., an ethnicity such as “Maya Quiche”), they must then prove nexus with case‑specific evidence.

2) Nexus Evidence Must Be Case‑Specific: The opinion cautions that population‑level statistics, generalized country conditions, or assertions that gangs disproportionately affect a broad class (here, 44% of Guatemalans who identify as indigenous) will not, without more, demonstrate that the persecutor targeted a particular family because of that protected status. Useful evidence would include statements, slurs, or actions by persecutors referencing the protected characteristic; patterns of targeting of similarly situated people attributable to that trait; or other credible direct or circumstantial indicators of motive.

3) Mixed‑Motive Arguments Require a Protected Motive in the Mix: The court reaffirmed that asylum does not require an exclusive protected motive. But a petitioner must still marshal evidence that the protected ground was “one central reason.” Where the record supports a purely economic motive (generalized extortion), mixed‑motive arguments will fail absent evidence of protected‑ground animus.

4) Withholding’s Sequence: Nexus First. The BIA need not undertake a probabilistic assessment of future persecution where nexus is not shown. Practitioners should structure briefing accordingly, proving nexus before devoting space to likelihood.

5) CAT Exhaustion: Claims not presented to the BIA are forfeited for judicial review. Parties must preserve all theories—especially CAT—through the administrative appeal to avoid summary rejection in the court of appeals.

6) Sixth Circuit’s Record‑Focused Review: The panel’s careful distinction from Tista‑Ruiz signals that the Sixth Circuit will remand when the BIA applies the wrong legal framework or ignores the record. But where the BIA cites controlling law and engages with the record, the court hews to deferential substantial‑evidence review on nexus and affirms in the absence of compelling contrary evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Particular Social Group (PSG): One of the five protected asylum grounds (along with race, religion, nationality, and political opinion). In the Sixth Circuit’s formulation used here, a PSG must be defined by a common, immutable, and fundamental characteristic and cannot be circularly defined by the harm feared. A group like “people targeted by gangs” is circular; it describes victims, not a characteristic independent of persecution.
• Circularity: A definition is circular when it uses the fact of persecution to define who is in the group. Courts reject such definitions because they allow any victim to create a “group” simply by being victimized.
• Nexus: The causal link between the harm and a protected ground.
  • Asylum: The protected ground must be “one central reason” for the persecution.
  • Withholding of removal: The persecution must be “because of” a protected ground. Although phrased differently, both require evidentiary proof of motive.
• Standards of Review:
  • De novo: The court decides legal questions afresh (e.g., PSG cognizability and legal standards).
  • Substantial evidence: The court defers to agency factual findings (e.g., motive/nexus) unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the opposite.
• Exhaustion: Appellate courts generally will not review claims that were not presented to the BIA. If a petitioner drops a CAT claim on administrative appeal, the court of appeals will not fault the BIA for failing to decide it.
• Generalized vs. Targeted Harm: Widespread criminal violence and extortion, even severe, are often treated as generalized criminality rather than persecution “on account of” a protected ground unless evidence shows that the protected trait motivated the perpetrator’s actions.

Conclusion

Macario‑Tzoc v. Bondi reinforces two practical propositions in Sixth Circuit asylum and withholding jurisprudence. First, a PSG cannot be rescued from circularity by appending an ethnic or demographic label; “family members of extortion victims” remains circular even when prefaced with “Indigenous Maya Quiche.” Second, proof of nexus demands case‑specific evidence of motive. Petitioners cannot meet their burden by pointing to population‑level disparities or generalized criminal conditions that affect wide swaths of society. The BIA’s application of the correct legal standards, careful record‑based analysis, and petitioners’ failure to preserve the CAT claim led the panel to deny the petition.

Although unpublished and thus non‑precedential, the opinion offers clear guidance: craft PSGs that are independent of harm, build a record that ties persecutor motive to a protected characteristic, respect the distinct asylum and withholding nexus formulations, and preserve all requested forms of relief before the BIA. In the absence of such showings, especially where the record depicts generalized criminal extortion rather than targeted persecution, substantial‑evidence review will typically foreclose relief.