Personal Rejection Is Not “Imputed Anti-Gang” Politics: Rigorous Nexus and PSG Membership Proof in MS-13 Gender-Based Asylum Claims

I. Introduction

This case concerns an El Salvadoran mother, Ana Rafaela Marquez-Cruz, and her minor daughter (a derivative applicant), who sought asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Marquez-Cruz alleged long-running harm tied to MS-13 member Jose Vioso Zetino: harassment starting when she was a child, a 2006 rape by two gang members she suspected were sent by Zetino, later threats (including threats to her child), and continued fear that Zetino, his wife, or MS-13 would harm her if returned.

The key legal issues were:

• Nexus: whether the past and feared harm was “on account of” a protected ground (political opinion—imputed anti-gang—or membership in a particular social group (PSG)).
• PSG cognizability and membership: whether her proposed social groups were legally cognizable and whether she proved she belonged to them.
• CAT likelihood and government acquiescence: whether it was more likely than not she would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of officials.

The Fourth Circuit reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision (not the IJ’s) because the BIA issued its own detailed opinion.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency’s findings that:

• Marquez-Cruz did not establish persecution “on account of” an imputed anti-gang political opinion; the record supported the conclusion that the motive was personal (Zetino’s desire to force a relationship), not political.
• Even assuming a cognizable family-based PSG, she failed to prove the requisite nexus between harm and family membership.
• Her proposed PSGs—“involuntary girlfriends of MS-13 gang leader Zetino” and “El Salvadoran women unable to leave a relationship”—failed on membership and cognizability grounds (immutability, particularity, social distinction), especially because she denied ever being in a relationship with Zetino and did not supply society-specific evidence of social distinction.
• Her CAT claim failed because the evidence did not compel a finding that torture was more likely than not, or that officials would acquiesce; the record showed police responses (restraining orders, investigations) and uncertainty about the current threat posed by Zetino.

Because asylum failed, withholding necessarily failed under Fourth Circuit law.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Role

1. Asylum framework and review posture

• Portillo Flores v. Garland, 3 F.4th 615 (4th Cir. 2021): The court used this case to restate the three elements for asylum: (i) past persecution or well-founded fear, (ii) nexus to a protected ground, and (iii) harm by an actor the government is unable or unwilling to control. It also supplied the “manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion” articulation for upholding the BIA.
• Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279 (4th Cir. 2022): Provided the standard of review: legal conclusions de novo; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence and treated as conclusive unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise.
• Wambura v. Barr, 980 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2020): Guided the court’s focus on the BIA’s decision where the BIA provides its own reasoning without expressly adopting the IJ.

2. Nexus (“one central reason”) and imputed political opinion

• Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817 (4th Cir. 2020): This was central to the opinion’s nexus analysis. The court relied on its definition of “one central reason,” emphasizing that the protected ground must be more than “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate.” Applying that lens, the court accepted the agency’s view that Zetino’s motive was personal coercion (forcing romantic/sexual access), not a political reaction to anti-gang beliefs.

3. Particular social group (PSG) requirements and cognizability review

• Guardado v. Bondi, 147 F.4th 432 (4th Cir. 2025): Supplied the controlling three-part PSG test: (1) immutable characteristic, (2) particularity, (3) social distinction in the relevant society. The court used this framework to evaluate (and ultimately reject) the proposed “involuntary girlfriends” and “women unable to leave a relationship” groups.
• Morales v. Garland, 51 F.4th 553 (4th Cir. 2022): Cited for the proposition that PSG cognizability is reviewed de novo—important because the court did not simply defer to the agency on whether these PSGs were legally cognizable.

4. Withholding of removal as “narrower” than asylum

• Yi Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2010): Provided the rule that withholding requires a higher showing (“clear probability”), and thus failure on asylum generally forecloses withholding when the same factual predicate is used. The court applied this to dispose of withholding after denying asylum.

5. CAT standards and deference to predictive findings

• Herrera-Martinez v. Garland, 22 F.4th 173 (4th Cir. 2022): Used to define CAT torture (severe pain/suffering intentionally inflicted) and the requirement of governmental “consent or acquiescence.”
• Ponce-Flores v. Garland, 80 F.4th 480 (4th Cir. 2023): Supported the strong deference to the agency’s predictive and acquiescence findings (conclusive unless compellingly contradicted).

6. Administrative asylum doctrine: the Matter of A-B- line

• Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (Matter of A-B- I): The petitioner argued the IJ’s reliance on this decision tainted the PSG analysis.
• Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (Matter of A- B- III): Vacated A-B- I. The BIA acknowledged the vacatur but found remand unnecessary because the IJ’s PSG denial rested on evidentiary shortcomings rather than reliance on A-B- I.
• Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I. & N. Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025): The Fourth Circuit added a notable coda: the Attorney General “overturned A-B-III and instructed the agency to adhere to Matter of A-B- I.” That observation reduced the practical force of the petitioner’s “vacatur” argument even further.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Imputed “anti-gang” political opinion: personal coercion vs. political motive

The court accepted the agency’s factual conclusion that Marquez-Cruz’s rejection of Zetino’s advances was not shown to be, or to be perceived as, a political act. The record supported the interpretation that the harm stemmed from Zetino’s personal obsession and desire to control her—i.e., retaliation for refusing a forced relationship—rather than punishment for an anti-gang viewpoint. Under Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, even if gangs are involved, the protected ground must be a “central reason,” not a post-hoc characterization of a private conflict.

This reasoning reflects a recurring doctrinal boundary: gang-related violence is not automatically “political,” and imputation requires evidence about the persecutor’s understanding of the victim’s conduct (what the persecutor believed and why that belief motivated the harm).

2. Family-based PSG: cognizable in theory, but nexus still required

The court did not need to definitively decide whether the “El Salvadoran Marquez family” is a cognizable PSG because it affirmed on nexus. Even if “family” is a paradigmatic PSG, the petitioner still had to prove that family membership was at least one central reason for the persecution. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Zetino’s motive remained focused on compelling Marquez-Cruz to be his girlfriend, not on harming the Marquez family as such.

Doctrinally, this matters: “family PSG” arguments often succeed or fail on nexus—whether the persecutor is targeting the family because it is that family (retaliation, vendetta, deterrence, extortion of the family unit), versus using family members as incidental leverage in a personal dispute.

3. “Involuntary girlfriends of Zetino”: failure of membership, immutability, and social distinction

The court affirmed the agency’s conclusion that the proposed group could not carry the asylum claim because:

• Membership proof failed: Marquez-Cruz and her cousin testified she was never in any relationship with Zetino; thus she could not establish she belonged to a “girlfriends” group.
• Group definition failed on evidentiary grounds: she did not establish there were other members (suggesting the “group” might be a one-person description rather than a socially recognized class).
• Immutability and social distinction were not shown: the court agreed that being an “involuntary girlfriend” was not shown to be immutable, and that she did not provide society-specific evidence that Salvadoran society views such persons as a distinct group.

A notable feature of the reasoning is its insistence that PSG analysis is not only conceptual; it is also evidentiary. Even a morally compelling narrative does not substitute for proof that the proposed group exists as a recognized category in the relevant society.

4. “El Salvadoran women unable to leave a relationship”: membership and particularity problems

The court agreed with the agency that the petitioner did not prove she was in this group because she was never in a relationship with Zetino. Additionally, the BIA’s particularity concern—“relationship” as “wide-ranging, amorphous, and subjective”—highlights how PSG formulations can fail if their boundaries are unclear (e.g., dating, harassment, stalking, coerced courtship, intimate partnership, marriage). The decision also reaffirmed the need for society-specific evidence of social distinction, not merely evidence that women face violence.

5. CAT: police response and uncertainty undermined “more likely than not” and acquiescence

CAT required Marquez-Cruz to show it was more likely than not she would be tortured and that officials would consent or acquiesce. The court emphasized record facts that supported the agency’s denial:

• She obtained restraining orders against Zetino and his wife.
• Police took rape statements and forensic evidence; lack of evidence prevented arrest of Zetino on that theory.
• Police were searching for Zetino for gang activities.
• She could not identify individuals who came to her door in 2014.
• By the 2020 hearing she did not know Zetino’s whereabouts and had not sought information.

Under Ponce-Flores v. Garland, the court treated the agency’s predictive findings as highly deferentially reviewed and found the record did not compel a contrary conclusion.

C. Impact

Although unpublished and non-binding, the decision has practical (persuasive) significance in three ways:

• Imputed political opinion claims remain difficult without motive evidence: The opinion reinforces that refusal to submit to a gang member’s romantic/sexual demands does not, without more, establish that the gang imputed an “anti-gang” political opinion. Applicants will need evidence that persecutors framed the refusal as political defiance (statements, patterns, expert/country evidence tying refusals to political labeling).
• PSG litigation remains evidence-intensive post–A-B- oscillations: The court signaled that even shifting AG guidance (A-B- vacatur and later restoration via Matter of S-S-F-M-) may not matter if the agency decision rests on evidentiary failures: unclear boundaries, lack of membership proof, lack of social distinction evidence.
• CAT claims often turn on “acquiescence” proof, not generalized danger: Police responsiveness (even if imperfect) and inability to identify specific future threats can defeat CAT under deferential review standards.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Nexus” / “on account of”: You must show the persecutor targeted you because of a protected characteristic (like political opinion or PSG membership), not merely that the persecutor was a gang member or that the harm occurred in a context involving gangs.
• “One central reason”: The protected ground does not have to be the only or dominant reason, but it must be a real motivating reason—not incidental.
• Imputed political opinion: Even if you never expressed a political view, you can qualify if the persecutor believed you held one and harmed you for that belief. Proof focuses on the persecutor’s perception and motive.
• Particular Social Group (PSG): A PSG must have (1) an immutable or fundamental trait, (2) clear boundaries (particularity), and (3) recognition in that society as a distinct group (social distinction). It is not enough that people in the group face danger; the group must be definable and socially recognizable.
• CAT “acquiescence”: CAT is not triggered by private violence alone; it requires that public officials consent to it or turn a blind eye in a legally meaningful way. Evidence that police took reports, pursued suspects, or issued protective orders can undercut acquiescence.
• “Substantial evidence” review: On appeal, the court does not re-try the case. It asks whether the agency’s view is reasonably supported by the record. The petitioner must show the record compels the opposite conclusion.

V. Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Marquez-Cruz v. Bondi underscores a stringent, evidence-driven approach to asylum and CAT claims arising from gang-related gender violence. The court affirmed that (1) personal coercion by a gang member is not automatically persecution “on account of” an imputed anti-gang political opinion; (2) even seemingly strong PSG candidates like “family” fail without a demonstrated nexus; (3) PSG formulations tied to relationship dynamics require careful proof of membership, clear group boundaries, and society-specific social distinction evidence; and (4) CAT relief demands particularized proof of likely torture and governmental acquiescence, not merely generalized danger or past trauma.