Ronaldo Lopez De Leon v. Attorney General: Establishing Nexus Requirements for Kinship-Based Particular Social Groups in Asylum and Withholding Claims

Introduction

In Ronaldo Lopez De Leon et al. v. Attorney General United States of America, the Third Circuit addressed whether a Guatemalan bus driver’s repeated extortion incidents at the hands of the Mara 18 gang — and his kinship ties to family members in the United States — sufficed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petitioners, Mr. Lopez De Leon, his wife Rosmery Velasquez Juarez, and their daughter L.M.L.V., argued that extortion and the resulting fear of lethal retaliation constituted persecution “on account of” a political opinion or membership in a “particular social group” defined by familial ties. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding no valid nexus to a protected ground, adequate government protection, and feasible internal relocation. The Third Circuit panel (Judges Hardiman, Porter, and Smith) denied the petition for review, clarifying the stringent nexus requirement for kinship-based PSG claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed the BIA’s decision, holding:

No binding precedent compelled overturning the IJ’s finding that Mr. Lopez De Leon failed to demonstrate “persecution on account of” his political opinion or membership in the PSG of “kinship ties to a U.S.-based family.”
Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the Guatemalan government was neither unwilling nor unable to protect petitioners, given the country conditions record and the absence of any report to local authorities.
The family’s move within Guatemala (from one town to another) undermined any claim of inability to internally relocate safely.
The CAT claim failed because the record did not establish that any future harm would rise to the level of torture or occur with governmental acquiescence.
Accordingly, the petition for review was denied in all respects.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992): Held that asylum applicants must show persecution “on account of” a protected ground. The Third Circuit applied this to require a clear nexus between extortion threats and the protected characteristic (kinship).
Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General, 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011): Articulated the “clear probability” standard for withholding of removal, which is more stringent than the asylum standard. The court noted that failure to qualify for asylum necessarily defeats withholding claims.
I.N.S. v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984): Defined the burden of proof for withholding of removal. The Third Circuit reaffirmed that an applicant must show it is “more likely than not” that he would face persecution on account of a protected ground.
Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357 (2021): Permitted immigration judges to credit portions of expert testimony while discounting others. The IJ’s weighing of Dr. Boerman’s country-condition report against De Leon’s own testimony was consistent with this principle.
Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004): Clarified that when the BIA adopts and affirms an IJ’s decision, both determinations are subject to review. The Third Circuit applied the “substantial evidence” standard accordingly.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning followed a structured analysis of asylum eligibility:

Nexus Requirement: The court emphasized that persecution must be “on account of” a protected characteristic. Although Mr. Lopez De Leon’s theory invoked political opinion and PSG membership (kinship ties), neither the timing of the 2019 extortion nor the lack of evidence tying gang motivations to his U.S.-based relatives supported a nexus.
Past Persecution vs. Well-Founded Fear: Recognizing no past persecution on a protected ground, the IJ found no presumption of future fear. The petitioner’s credible testimony of non-violent extortion did not amount to persecution absent a protected motivation.
Government Protection: The court upheld the IJ’s reliance on country-condition materials indicating ongoing anti-gang investigations, coupled with the petitioners’ failure to report crimes to law enforcement, to conclude that state protection was neither futile nor inadequate.
Internal Relocation: Movement within Guatemala to another town without subsequent harm demonstrated that safe, alternative residence existed, defeating the fear-of-future-persecution claim.
Withholding of Removal: Because asylum required a lower threshold than withholding, denial of asylum logically precluded withholding under the more demanding “clear probability” standard.
CAT Standard: The court confirmed that relief under CAT demands evidence of torture with state acquiescence. The IJ’s review of all country-condition materials and the failure to identify government-tolerated torture supported the denial.

Impact

This decision will guide future Third Circuit asylum applicants by reinforcing:

The strict application of the nexus requirement: kinship alone—especially when the petitioner lacked U.S. relatives at the time of harm—will not suffice to establish a PSG.
The need to engage local law enforcement, unless futility can be clearly demonstrated by record evidence.
The importance of showing that internal relocation is genuinely impracticable or unsafe, rather than relying on generalized fear.
The tightening of kinship-based PSG claims in cases of gang extortion, requiring concrete proof that extortionists targeted the applicant because of familial ties rather than economic motives.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group (PSG): A group defined by an innate characteristic, shared background, or unchangeable social trait. In this case, the petitioner asserted a PSG of “kinship ties to U.S. relatives.”
Nexus Requirement: The causal link between persecution (or fear of persecution) and a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or PSG). Even credible harm must be motivated by one of these grounds to qualify for asylum.
Well-Founded Fear: A standard for asylum requiring a reasonable possibility of future persecution. Past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future fear; absent past persecution, an applicant must present both subjective fear and objective evidence.
Withholding of Removal: A more stringent form of relief than asylum, requiring applicants to prove it is “more likely than not” they will be persecuted on a protected ground if returned home.
Convention Against Torture (CAT): International treaty relief requiring proof that the applicant would face torture — severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted by or with the acquiescence of public officials — if returned to their home country.

Conclusion

The Third Circuit’s decision in Ronaldo Lopez De Leon v. Attorney General underscores rigorous adherence to statutory and precedential requirements for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. By affirming that kinship-based PSG claims demand contemporaneous evidence of targeted persecution “on account of” those ties, and by upholding the necessity of credible government-protection and internal relocation analyses, the court clarified and tightened the legal framework governing gang-related extortion cases. Applicants in similar circumstances must demonstrate clearly motivated persecution tied to a protected ground, corroborate government unwillingness or inability to intervene, and establish that no safe haven exists within their home country.