Re-affirming Nexus and Particular-Social-Group Precision:
Aguilar-Mejia v. Bondi and the Sixth Circuit’s 2025 Guidance on Gang-Related Asylum Claims

1. Introduction

Case: Pedro Aguilar-Mejia v. Pamela Bondi, No. 22-3365, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, decided 13 Aug 2025 (unpublished).
Parties: Petitioner Pedro Aguilar-Mejia (Guatemalan national) v. Respondent Pamela Bondi, Attorney General.
Procedural posture: Petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of (i) asylum, (ii) withholding of removal, and (iii) protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and rejecting a motion to remand for new evidence.

Background facts. At age 15, Aguilar-Mejia experienced a single street encounter in Guatemala: three Mara 18 gang members slapped and pushed him, stole ~10 quetzales, and tried to recruit him. The family relocated internally immediately; he had no further trouble during the remaining ten months in Guatemala. He entered the United States unlawfully in 2014 and sought relief based on the 2013 incident, asserting persecution as a member of a particular social group (PSG) variously phrased as “child victims of gang recruitment,” “young male Guatemalans,” and later, “family,” among others.

Key issues on appeal.

• Whether the 2013 incident constituted “persecution.”
• Whether it was “on account of” a protected ground (nexus).
• Whether the proposed PSGs were cognizable under asylum law (immutability, particularity & social distinction).
• Whether withholding-of-removal and CAT standards were met.
• Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying a motion to remand based on new evidence (girlfriend’s U.S. pregnancy).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review. Applying substantial-evidence and abuse-of-discretion standards, the panel held:

1. The single robbery/recruitment episode was ordinary criminal conduct, not persecution on a protected ground.
2. No well-founded fear of future persecution existed, especially given successful internal relocation.
3. Each PSG proposed was either impermissibly circular or lacked particularity/social distinction; thus, none were cognizable.
4. Failure on the lesser asylum standard doomed withholding-of-removal; CAT claim was forfeited.
5. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing remand; the girlfriend’s pregnancy did not alter the analysis or provide material new evidence.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip v. Garland, 114 F.4th 487 (6th Cir. 2024) – Reiterated the substantial-evidence standard; court adopted the same deference here.
• Marqus v. Barr, 968 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2020) – Set out abuse-of-discretion review for motions to remand; guided analysis of new-evidence claim.
• Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) – Defined “persecution” threshold; key to holding that a single slap/push failed to qualify.
• Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) & Rios-Zamora v. Sessions, 751 F. App’x 784 (6th Cir. 2018) – Both applied to show that isolated criminal acts, absent more, are insufficient.
• Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2011) – Distinguished economic/criminal motives from protected-ground persecution, crucial to nexus analysis.
• Cruz-Guzman v. Barr, 920 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 2019) – Three-part PSG test cited verbatim; foundation for rejecting petitioner’s group theories.
• Reyes Galeana v. Garland, 94 F.4th 555 (6th Cir. 2024) – Recent case on PSG “re-packaging”; used to dismiss newly phrased but substantively identical PSGs.
• Classic Supreme Court standard: INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) – Confirmed higher burden for withholding of removal.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Nexus (Motive)

The panel affirmed the IJ’s finding that Mara 18 acted for two non-protected reasons:

1. Petty theft (taking 10 quetzales).
2. Generic gang recruitment.

Neither constitutes persecution “on account of” race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a PSG. The petitioner’s minimal argument on nexus was deemed forfeited, but the court nevertheless observed that general criminality ≠ protected-ground motive (Khozhaynova).

B. Magnitude (Past Persecution)

Per Pilica, persecution requires more than “isolated incidents.” A single, brief physical encounter without medical treatment, plus successful internal relocation, simply does not cross the line. The panel stressed that many asylum claims fail here when grounded solely in everyday gang crime.

C. Particular Social Group (PSG) Analysis

A cognizable PSG must possess:

1. Immutability – Shared characteristic cannot readily be changed.
2. Particularity – Clearly defined boundaries; not amorphous.
3. Social distinction – Recognized as a distinct group by society in the country of origin.

Each of petitioner’s iterations fell short:

• “Child victims of gang recruitment and violence” – Circularity (defined by the harm itself) & vagueness.
• “Young male Guatemalans” – Overbroad demographic label; innumerable membership.
• “Family” (based on girlfriend’s pregnancy) – Purely relational, unlinked to any social distinction or societal targeting.
• Re-packaged versions – Same defects; renaming cannot cure circularity/overbreadth (Reyes Galeana).

D. Prospects for Future Harm

Successful relocation for 10 months in Guatemala undermined any “well-founded fear.” The Sixth Circuit emphasized that internal relocation is a potent counterweight when no evidence shows the persecutor’s reach nationwide.

E. Withholding of Removal & CAT

Because asylum standards were unmet, the more stringent withholding standard necessarily failed. The CAT claim was deemed waived for lack of argument (Ramani v. Ashcroft).

F. Motion to Remand

Under Marqus, new evidence must be both (1) previously unavailable and (2) likely to change the outcome. The panel held that the girlfriend’s U.S. pregnancy:

• Was irrelevant to past Guatemalan facts underpinning asylum.
• Did not transform the PSG analysis (still overbroad/circular).
• Did not establish a targetable family unit in Guatemala.

Therefore, denial of remand was no abuse of discretion.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

Although unpublished, the opinion consolidates and clarifies several persistent threads in gang-related asylum jurisprudence, particularly within the Sixth Circuit:

• Red-lights broad “young male” PSGs. The decision adds to a line of cases disfavoring demographic-only groups, reinforcing Lopez Garcia v. Garland (2023).
• Nexus scrutiny is decisive. Courts will continue to examine whether gangs are motivated by personal economic or territorial interests versus protected characteristics; mere recruitment or robbery does not suffice.
• Internal relocation is powerful rebuttal evidence. Successful flight within the home country severely weakens claims of future persecution.
• Remand standards fortified. The opinion warns counsel that “re-packaging” PSGs and presenting tangential U.S.-based facts (e.g., pregnancy) rarely clear the materiality hurdle.

Collectively, the case will likely discourage similarly situated applicants from relying on single-incident gang encounters without robust evidence of targeted persecution tied to a precise, cognizable PSG.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Particular Social Group (PSG) – A category of people in asylum law who share a characteristic they cannot change (e.g., ethnicity) and who are recognized by society as a distinct group.
• Nexus – Causal link required between the feared harm and a protected ground; motive matters.
• Persecution vs. Harassment – Persecution is serious harm (physical, economic, or liberty-related) repeated or systemic; harassment is minor or isolated.
• Substantial-evidence review – An appellate court will uphold an agency’s factual finding unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.
• Motion to Remand – A request that the BIA send a case back to the IJ to consider new evidence; granted only if the evidence is material and previously unavailable.
• Convention Against Torture (CAT) – International treaty implemented in U.S. law that prohibits removal of a person likely to face torture by or with the acquiescence of the government abroad.

5. Conclusion

Aguilar-Mejia v. Bondi solidifies the Sixth Circuit’s restrictive stance toward gang-related asylum claims that rely on generalized youth demographics, single criminal incidents, or reformulated PSG labels. The opinion underscores three pillars: (1) a rigorous nexus requirement distinguishing protected-ground persecution from ordinary crime, (2) an exacting PSG test rejecting circular or amorphous definitions, and (3) the critical role internal relocation plays in dispelling future-persecution fears. Practitioners must therefore craft narrowly tailored PSGs supported by evidence of societal recognition and direct motive, and must marshal substantive, country-specific proof when seeking remands based on new developments. Even though unpublished, the case offers persuasive authority and practical guidance for immigration courts and litigators confronting similar factual patterns.