No Bright-Line Bar to Mixed-Motive Family Nexus: Tenth Circuit Vacates BIA’s “Means-to-an-End” Rule in O.C.V. v. Bondi

Introduction

In O.C.V. v. Bondi, the Tenth Circuit issued a published decision vacating a precedential Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that had adopted a categorical rule for “nexus” in family-based asylum claims. The petitioners—a Mexican family targeted by the La Línea cartel after the murder of a son and threats tied to their farmland in Madera, Chihuahua—sought asylum and withholding of removal based on, ultimately, membership in a particular social group (PSG): their family.

An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding no cognizable PSG and, in any event, no “nexus” between the harms and family membership. On appeal, a three-judge BIA panel published an opinion dismissing the appeal on nexus grounds alone. The family then petitioned for review. The Tenth Circuit granted the petition, holding that the BIA misstated the legal standard for nexus under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by adopting a bright-line rule that effectively foreclosed mixed-motive asylum claims when persecutors targeted a family “as a means to an end.”

The decision clarifies several points:

• The BIA’s categorical “if-then” articulation of nexus for family cases is contrary to the INA’s “one central reason” mixed-motive framework.
• It remains proper to analyze motive using a “means-ends” lens, but not to treat the presence of an unprotected aim as dispositive.
• Within the Tenth Circuit, “animus” remains part of the nexus analysis and can be shown by a persecutor’s intent to overcome a protected characteristic (not limited to hatred), consistent with longstanding BIA and Ninth Circuit formulations.
• An additional protected ground (e.g., political opinion) intertwined with family status is not required to prevail on a family-based claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit (Judge Rossman, joined by Judge Ebel) granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded. The court held unlawful the BIA’s rule stating:

“If a persecutor is targeting members of a certain family as a means of achieving some other ultimate goal unrelated to the protected ground, family membership is incidental or subordinate to that other ultimate goal and therefore not one central reason for the harm.”

The court concluded this formulation contradicts the INA’s text, which expressly allows mixed motives as long as a protected ground is “at least one central reason” for the persecution (8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). The court rejected the government’s attempt to rehabilitate the BIA’s wording by adding limiting terms absent from the BIA’s opinion (citing Chenery and Michigan v. EPA).

The court also:

• Affirmed that using a “means-ends” framework to analyze motive is not itself erroneous and is consistent with Tenth Circuit precedent.
• Confirmed that “animus” is part of the nexus inquiry in this Circuit and can be shown by a “desire to overcome” the protected characteristic (e.g., Kasinga and Pitcherskaia), not just by animosity or hatred.
• Rejected the notion that a family-based claim must be tied to another protected ground to succeed; such linkage can be one way to establish nexus, but is not necessary.

The court performed de novo review of legal questions (as required post-Loper Bright) and substantial-evidence review of facts, but it did not reach the ultimate nexus determination; instead, it remanded for the BIA to apply the correct standard in the first instance (Ventura). Judge Tymkovich dissented in part, agreeing with the general legal framing but concluding the BIA’s articulation and application were consistent with existing law and should be affirmed.

Analysis

Factual and Procedural Background

• The petitioners, a Mexican family (the “C.R. family”), lived on and near an 86-hectare parcel in Madera, Chihuahua. After their son, V.R.R.M., was kidnapped and murdered, La Línea used calls from his phone, in-person threats by armed men, and surveillance on the road to force the family to abandon their home and, later, to leave Mexico to prevent them from reclaiming the land. The IJ found the adult applicants credible.
• The family conceded removability and sought asylum and withholding. They initially advanced three PSG theories (“landowners,” “heirs,” and “the C.R. family”) plus political opinion; on BIA appeal they focused solely on the family PSG.
• The IJ denied relief, finding the non-family PSGs non-cognizable and no nexus to family ties; the BIA (in a published decision) dismissed on nexus only (asylum and withholding), assuming cognizability.
• The Tenth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), reviewed only the BIA’s opinion because it was a three-member precedential panel, and granted the petition.

Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Statutory framework: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) (refugee definition), 1158(b)(1)(A) (asylum eligibility), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (“one central reason”), 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding). The “one central reason” clause allows mixed motives so long as a protected ground is a central reason for the persecution.
• In re J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2007):
  • Established the “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate” articulation of what is not “one central reason.”
  • The Tenth Circuit has previously endorsed this standard (Dallakoti; Orellana-Recinos).
• In re L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40 (BIA 2017):
  • In a family-as-PSG case where a cartel targeted the son to gain access to the father’s store, the BIA found no nexus because the persecutor’s objective (drug sales) made any family-based motive incidental.
  • The Tenth Circuit has summarized L-E-A- as rejecting nexus when family membership is only a means to effectuate a distinct non-protected objective (Orellana-Recinos).
• In re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 1996):
  • Recognized that persecutors can have mixed motives—including protected and unprotected motives—underscoring the need to consider all motivations.
• Orellana-Recinos v. Garland, 993 F.3d 851 (10th Cir. 2021):
  • Disagreed with the Fourth Circuit’s broader approach (Hernandez-Avalos) where targeting a mother to control her son’s behavior could suffice for nexus.
  • Endorsed a “means-ends” lens: family membership used merely to achieve an unrelated goal may be insufficient for nexus if the family link is only incidental.
• Karki v. Holder, 715 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2013):
  • Reversed where the agency stopped after identifying an unprotected motive and ignored evidence of a protected motive; underscores that an unprotected motive does not negate the existence of a protected central reason.
• Miguel-Peña v. Garland, 94 F.4th 1145 (10th Cir. 2024):
  • Reaffirmed that protected grounds cannot be incidental or subordinate to unprotected motives, and that nexus analysis examines whether the persecutor would be hostile absent the unprotected motive.
• Mazariegos-Rodas v. Garland, 122 F.4th 655 (6th Cir. 2024):
  • Rejected the very BIA nexus formulation at issue here as “overly restrictive” and contrary to the INA’s mixed-motive tolerance; emphasized asylum’s humanitarian purpose and the need for a generous standard in doubtful cases.
• Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015):
  • Found nexus where a mother was targeted to control her son; Tenth Circuit declined to follow to the extent it treats causation alone as sufficient for motive.
• In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), and Pitcherskaia v. INS, 118 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 1997):
  • Established that “animus” for persecution/nexus can be shown by an intent to overcome a protected characteristic, even absent subjective ill will or where the persecutor claims to be acting “for the victim’s good.”
• Administrative law and review:
  • Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024): Courts exercise independent judgment on questions of statutory interpretation; no Chevron deference to the BIA.
  • SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943), and Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015): Courts may uphold agency action only on grounds the agency invoked; counsel’s post hoc rationalizations cannot cure an erroneous rule statement.
  • FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009): Agencies cannot depart from settled rules sub silentio; the BIA’s new categorical statement clashed with its prior mixed-motive jurisprudence.
  • INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002): Appellate courts remand to the agency to apply the correct standard in the first instance.

Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdiction and scope of review. The court reviewed only the BIA’s published three-member opinion, not the IJ’s decision, except to use the IJ’s factual recitation for background (Uanreroro). Legal questions were reviewed de novo; factual findings under the substantial evidence standard (Dallakoti). Post-Loper Bright, no Chevron deference to BIA statutory interpretations.
2. Nexus and mixed motives. The INA allows asylum where a protected ground is “at least one central reason” for persecution. Persecutors can have multiple motives (S-P-). The BIA’s new “if-then” rule—if family is targeted as a means to an unrelated end, then family membership is necessarily incidental and cannot be a central reason—conflicts with the statutory mixed-motive framework. By its terms, the rule prematurely ends the inquiry once an unrelated motive is found, requiring adjudicators to ignore evidence that family membership may nevertheless be a central reason (contrary to Karki).
3. Why the BIA’s wording matters. The government asked the court to read the BIA’s rule as if it said “only as a means” or “merely incidental,” but the BIA did not use those qualifiers. Under Chenery/Michigan v. EPA, the court cannot affirm based on language the agency never adopted. The court also illustrated the problem via the BIA’s own “classic example” from L-E-A-—the assassination of the Romanovs—showing how the new rule could wrongly foreclose even paradigmatic family-based persecution by relabeling it a means to an unprotected political end.
4. “Means-ends” framing is permissible—but not dispositive. The court reaffirmed that it is appropriate to analyze whether family membership is being used “as a means to an end,” consistent with Orellana-Recinos and L-E-A-. What is impermissible is the categorical conclusion that the presence of an unrelated end automatically negates family-based nexus. Adjudicators must assess whether family status remains at least one central reason.
5. Animus within the Tenth Circuit’s nexus analysis. The Tenth Circuit’s own cases incorporate “animus” or “hostility” into the nexus inquiry. The court clarified that “animus” includes a persecutor’s “desire to overcome” a protected characteristic (Kasinga; Pitcherskaia), and does not require hatred or punitive intent. The First Circuit’s narrower approach to animus was acknowledged as different; the Tenth Circuit remains bound by its own precedents.
6. No requirement to tether family status to another protected ground. The BIA stated it is “not necessary” to show that family status is connected to another protected ground; such a linkage is just one possible way to prove that family membership is a central reason. The Tenth Circuit agreed.
7. Remedy. Because the BIA stated and applied an unlawful legal standard, the court vacated and remanded. It declined to decide nexus on the record in the first instance (Ventura), and signaled that IJs/BIA must not cut off their analysis once an unrelated motive is identified; they must consider all direct and circumstantial evidence that family membership was also a central reason.

Impact

• Binding effect in the Tenth Circuit. Immigration Judges and the BIA must not apply the BIA’s “if family-as-means to unrelated end, then no nexus” rule in cases arising within the Tenth Circuit (e.g., Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming). They must conduct a full mixed-motive analysis and consider whether family membership is at least one central reason notwithstanding the presence of another goal (e.g., land control, financial gain).
• Administrative law recalibration post-Loper Bright. The opinion exemplifies rigorous de novo judicial review of BIA statutory interpretations. Attempts to salvage agency rationales through post hoc rewording will fail. Published BIA formulations are scrutinized for fidelity to statutory text and prior agency precedents.
• Clarified animus standard for nexus in the Tenth Circuit. “Animus” remains part of nexus but is not confined to hatred. A “desire to overcome” a protected characteristic (e.g., suppressing a family identity, erasing a tribal or gender-linked trait) can satisfy the requirement even if the persecutor professes benevolent intent.
• Family-based claims and criminal motives. The decision prevents a categorical dismissal of claims where gangs/cartels have criminal aims. The presence of unprotected motives (profit, land-grab, recruitment) does not automatically defeat nexus if protected reasons remain central. Advocates should marshal all evidence—including statements like “we are coming for the rest of your family”—to show that family identity itself is a central reason.
• Inter-circuit divergence and forum significance.
  • The Tenth Circuit’s approach tracks the Sixth Circuit’s recent skepticism toward the BIA’s categorical rule and continues to diverge from the Fourth Circuit’s causation-heavy approach (Hernandez-Avalos) to the extent that approach treats “why me” causation as sufficient for motive.
  • Because IJs and the BIA must follow regional circuit law (In re Garcia; Medina-Rosales), outcomes may differ across circuits until the Supreme Court or Congress imposes uniformity.
• Practical guidance for future cases.
  • Develop mixed-motive proof. Show that family identity played a central role through persecutor statements, patterns of targeting the family unit, threats referencing kinship, and evidence that others similarly situated but outside the family were treated differently.
  • Do not rely on “why me” causation alone. In the Tenth Circuit, motive requires more than but-for causation. Evidence should speak to the persecutor’s reasons: hostility, control through family leverage, or a desire to overcome the family identity.
  • Plead animus broadly. Argue “intent to overcome” as a valid form of animus, especially where persecutors assert “benign” goals (e.g., “re-education,” “purification,” “protecting” the victim).
  • Remember mixed-motive symmetry. The existence of an unprotected aim (e.g., land control) does not negate the possibility that family membership is also one central reason. Push back against analytical shortcuts that stop after identifying one motive.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Nexus. The legal link between the harm and a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, PSG). The INA requires that a protected ground be “at least one central reason” for the persecution. Multiple motives can coexist.
• Mixed-motive analysis. Even if a persecutor has non-protected aims (e.g., money, land), nexus exists if the protected ground is also a central (not incidental) reason for the harm. Adjudicators must weigh all evidence of motive; they cannot stop after finding an unprotected motive.
• “Means-ends” lens. A tool for analyzing motive: was the family identity used merely to achieve an unrelated goal? If family ties are only a tool, that can indicate the family-based motive is incidental. But the mere presence of an unrelated “end” does not automatically defeat nexus; the inquiry must go on.
• Animus for nexus. In the Tenth Circuit, proof of animus is part of nexus. Animus includes both hostility and a “desire to overcome” the protected characteristic. It does not require hatred or punitive intent.
• Standard of review. Courts review the BIA’s legal interpretations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. After Loper Bright, no Chevron deference applies to BIA statutory interpretations. Courts may not affirm on reasons the agency did not adopt (Chenery).
• Scope of appellate review. When the BIA issues a full precedential three-member decision, the court reviews that opinion alone for legal correctness. The IJ decision can be referenced for factual background but is not the basis of review.
• Asylum vs. withholding. Both require nexus, though the burdens differ (asylum generally lower; withholding requires a higher likelihood of persecution). The court assumed the same nexus framework applied here because the parties did not argue otherwise.

Conclusion

O.C.V. v. Bondi resets the nexus analysis for family-based asylum claims in the Tenth Circuit. The court rejected the BIA’s categorical “means-to-an-end” rule because it short-circuits the mixed-motive inquiry mandated by the INA’s “one central reason” standard. While the “means-ends” lens remains a legitimate way to probe motive, it cannot be used as a bright-line bar that treats the existence of an unrelated goal as dispositive. Equally important, the court affirmed that “animus” is part of the nexus analysis in this Circuit and includes a persecutor’s “desire to overcome” a protected characteristic, not just hatred.

The decision has immediate practical consequences. IJs and the BIA, in Tenth Circuit cases, must consider all direct and circumstantial evidence of family-based motives even when criminal or economic aims are present, and they must avoid prematurely ending the analysis after identifying an unprotected motive. For advocates, the opinion underscores the importance of developing evidence that family membership is itself targeted and centrally motivates the harm. For the BIA, it is a cautionary tale in administrative law: precise articulation of legal standards matters, and courts will not rewrite agency rules to save them. In the broader landscape, O.C.V. contributes to an evolving inter-circuit dialogue on nexus and mixed motives, signaling a more faithful adherence to the INA’s text and asylum’s humanitarian purpose.