Family-Targeted Violence Equals Direct Persecution: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Nexus and Past-Persecution Standards in Mejia-Hernandez v. Bondi

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Elizabeth Mejia-Hernandez v. Pamela J. Bondi (No. 23-1508, decided 17 July 2025). The petitioners—a Honduran mother and her children—sought review of an adverse decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Judge Ripple, writing for a unanimous panel (Judges Hamilton and Pryor concurring), granted the petition in part, set aside the BIA’s past-persecution and nexus findings, and remanded for the limited purpose of assessing whether the Honduran government was “unable or unwilling” to control the private persecutor.

Core questions before the court:

Do years of murder, threats, and harassment aimed at a petitioner’s relatives constitute past persecution of the petitioner herself?
Does such violence satisfy the statutory “nexus” requirement when the protected ground is membership in the petitioner’s nuclear family?
Does a deficient Notice to Appear (NTA) strip an Immigration Judge (IJ) of jurisdiction?

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit:

Affirmed jurisdiction—re-affirming Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, it held that the omission of time/place in an NTA is a waivable, non-jurisdictional, claim-processing defect.
Reversed the BIA’s merits ruling—the court found the record compelled the conclusion that Mejia suffered past persecution and had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her nuclear-family membership.
Created a new, clarified standard—when a persecutor murders or seriously harms multiple relatives and issues continuing threats, a petitioner personally receives “credible, imminent, and serious” threats amounting to direct persecution, even if no physical blow is landed on the petitioner herself.
Remanded—ordering the BIA to address the unresolved “state action” element (government inability/unwillingness).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Case	Key Holding	Role in Mejia-Hernandez
Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019)	Lack of time/place in NTA ≠ jurisdictional defect; merely claim-processing.	Foreclosed petitioner’s bid to terminate proceedings; court found waiver and no prejudice.
N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2014)	Violence against relatives can constitute direct threat to applicant.	Blueprint for holding that killings of six relatives satisfied “credible, imminent, severe” threat standard.
W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2018)	Nuclear family is a cognizable social group; nexus satisfied where family ties motivate persecution.	Applied to find Mejia’s family membership “one central reason” for targeting.
Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr, 922 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2019)	Persecution arising from forced relationship with wife; confirms family-based nexus.	Reinforced proposition that relationship—not private dispute—drove violence.
N.Y.C.C. v. Barr, 930 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2019) & Escobedo Marquez v. Barr, 965 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2020)	Vague, unfulfilled threats alone do not equal persecution.	Distinguished; here threats were reinforced by repeated murders, elevating them to persecution.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Jurisdictional Challenge to the NTA

Statutory requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) (time/place) is a claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional.
Mejia failed to object at the first master calendar hearing and conceded removability; therefore, she waived the defect and showed no prejudice.

b. Past Persecution

Persecution requires more than “mere harassment”; it demands serious harm or credible threats thereof. The court synthesized three strands:

Quantity & nature of threats – Cesar’s explicit vow to “finish off” the family constituted specific, repeated death threats.
Immediacy & credibility – Six murders (grandfather and five cousins) proved Cesar’s willingness and ability to act, transforming threats into persecution.
Personal targeting – Even though the blows fell on relatives, the pattern sent an unmistakable message to Mejia: “you are next.”

c. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution

Because past persecution was established, a presumption arose. Even apart from that presumption, the court found the fear objectively reasonable:

Latest killing occurred in 2017; an armed inquiry followed in 2018.
Relatives dispersed or fled; lack of further contact is “unsurprising” and does not negate risk (citing N.L.A.).
Internal relocation unreasonable—Cesar tracked the family across three towns; prior moves failed to secure safety.

d. Nexus to Protected Ground

Family membership qualified as a particular social group. The court rejected the “private vendetta” framing:

“Ms. Mejia herself did not participate in the original dispute; only her familial ties make her a target.”

e. Government Involvement (State-Action Element)

Because the IJ/BIA had scarcely addressed whether Honduras was “unable or unwilling,” the Seventh Circuit remanded, reserving that factual-legal determination for agency expertise (applying INS v. Ventura).

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

Strengthens Family-Based Claims—Clarifies that sustained, lethal vendettas against multiple relatives are persecution of each family member, not merely collateral harm.
Guides Evaluation of Threats—Courts and IJs must examine threats in context (pattern, follow-through), not in isolation.
Raises Bar for “Private Dispute” Defense—Where violence spills over to uninvolved relatives, the “purely personal quarrel” rationale will rarely defeat nexus.
Procedural Reminder on NTAs—Re-affirms that time/place defects are waivable; respondents should object promptly or risk forfeiture.
Agency Remand Protocol—Reinforces the Supreme Court’s Ventura/Gonzalez principle that appellate courts should not usurp fact-finding delegated to the BIA.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

NTA (Notice to Appear) – The document that starts removal proceedings; like a civil summons. Missing info can be waived.
IJ / BIA – The IJ is the trial-level immigration judge; the BIA is the appellate body within DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Past Persecution vs. Well-Founded Fear – Past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future risk; without past persecution, you must independently prove future danger.
Nexus – A causal link; persecution must be “because of” a protected ground, e.g., family membership. Mixed motives are allowed so long as the protected ground is “one central reason.”
Unable or Unwilling – If a private actor harms you, asylum is still possible only if the home government can’t or won’t control the actor.
Internal Relocation – The government can rebut fear of persecution by showing you can safely move elsewhere inside the country.

5. Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Mejia-Hernandez v. Bondi marks a meaningful doctrinal refinement: lethal, sustained violence against a petitioner’s relatives—accompanied by explicit, credible threats—is past persecution of the petitioner, thereby triggering the presumption of future danger and shifting the analytic focus to government involvement. By entwining the concepts of “direct threat,” “family nexus,” and “pattern of violence,” the ruling provides clearer guidance to IJs, the BIA, and practitioners assessing family-based asylum claims arising from protracted blood feuds or vendettas.

On remand, if the BIA concludes Honduras was unable or unwilling to protect Mejia, asylum must be granted; if it finds effective state protection, relief may be denied. Either way, the judgment will ripple through future Seventh Circuit cases (and likely other circuits) where applicants confront the recurring hurdle of converting family-targeted terror into legally cognizable persecution.

Family–Targeted Violence Equals Direct Persecution: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Nexus and Past-Persecution Standards in Mejia-Hernandez v. Bondi