Seventh Circuit Tightens the Nexus and Relocation Requirements in Cartel-Violence Claims:
Commentary on P. A.-V. v. Bondi, 21-2737 (7th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

P. A.-V. v. Bondi is the latest in a line of Seventh Circuit cases examining the evidentiary thresholds for withholding of removal under §241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petitioner, a Mexican national whose family owns land lying above a fuel pipeline, claimed that cartel threats and murders of relatives rendered his return “more likely than not” to result in persecution or torture. After the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied relief, the Seventh Circuit—applying its “extremely deferential” substantial-evidence review—affirmed.

Beyond affirmance, the panel (Maldonado, J., for the court) crystallises two doctrinal points which will resonate in future Central-American and Mexican cartel cases:

1. Nexus Clarification: Evidence of violence against family members in a cartel context does not, by itself, create a presumption that the applicant was—or will be—targeted; a specific link to the applicant is indispensable.
2. Relocation Analysis Refined: When the persecutor is non-state, the applicant bears the burden of proving both the impossibility and the unreasonableness of internal relocation; general country-condition evidence of cartel reach is insufficient.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Past Persecution – The panel agreed with the IJ/BIA that neither a 1999 restaurant threat nor later murders/kidnappings of relatives showed that the cartel targeted P. A.-V. himself.
• Future Persecution – Absent past persecution, the petitioner bore the full burden of proving a “clear probability” of future harm. The court deemed his showing too speculative and largely reflective of generalised regional violence.
• Internal Relocation – Even assuming danger in his hometown, the record did not compel a finding that relocation elsewhere in Mexico would be unreasonable.
• CAT Claim – Failure on the withholding claim doomed the CAT application; petitioner adduced no evidence of state acquiescence to torture.
• Pseudonym Ruling – The court permanently sealed identifying information, citing Doe v. City of Chicago and related anonymity precedents.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Lozano-Zuniga v. Lynch, 832 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2016) – Provides the “extremely deferential” substantial-evidence standard and articulates the “clear probability” threshold. The panel leans heavily on this framework in refusing to re-weigh the evidence.
• Plaza-Ramirez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 2018) & Gonzales Ruano v. Barr, 922 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2019) – Confirm that one’s nuclear or extended family qualifies as a “particular social group,” satisfying one prong of the withholding test. The government conceded the point, so the case moved directly to nexus analysis.
• Zhou Ji Ni v. Holder, 635 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2011) – Discusses “derivative persecution.” The panel analogised to hold that absent proof the cartel harmed relatives “in an effort to persecute” P. A.-V., the doctrine cannot bridge evidentiary gaps.
• Chen v. Holder, 604 F.3d 324 (7th Cir. 2010) – Petitioner cited Chen to argue the BIA failed to consider all evidence. The court distinguished Chen, emphasising that the BIA here did engage the nexus question.
• Ndonyi v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008) – Sets the two-step relocation inquiry (possibility and reasonableness); the panel explicitly applies it.
• CAT lineage: Mabuenza v. Garland, 16 F.4th 1222 (7th Cir. 2021); W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2018) – Provide the “more likely than not” and state acquiescence requirements, which petitioner failed to meet.
• Anonymity cases: Doe v. City of Chicago, Doe v. Gonzales, Roe v. Dettelbach – Ground the court’s decision to grant permanent pseudonym status.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Past Persecution & Nexus

Although the IJ found P. A.-V. credible, credibility alone is never dispositive; the claimant must still tie the harm to a protected ground. Key analytical steps:

1. Identify each alleged incident of harm (1999 threat; kidnappings; murders).
2. Ask: “Was this harm on account of membership in the social group (family)?”
3. Ask: “Was the harm directed at the applicant, or at least intended to intimidate him?”

On this record, the panel agreed with the IJ that the evidence lacked specific references (cartel messages, ransom notes, or eyewitness testimony) demonstrating that the cartel’s motive was to reach P. A.-V. through family members. Hence, no presumption of future persecution arose.

3.2.2 Future Persecution

Without the presumption, the burden remained on the petitioner. He supplied Dr Meade’s expert opinion on widespread “huachicolero” violence, but the court labelled this “generalised country-condition evidence”. The opinion distinguishes between (1) statistical risk, which may justify asylum policy choices, and (2) individualized targeting, which statutory withholding requires.

3.2.3 Internal Relocation

Because the persecutor was a non-state cartel, regulation 8 C.F.R. §1208.16(b)(3) placed the relocation burden squarely on the applicant. The court found:

• No specific testimony or documentary evidence of cartel control nationwide.
• Expert’s concession that “temporary” safe relocation was possible undercut the argument that permanent relocation would be unreasonable.

The panel therefore endorsed the IJ’s conclusion that relocation was both possible and reasonable, obviating withholding.

3.2.4 CAT Analysis

The court re-emphasised its oft-repeated holding in Khan v. Filip: if a petitioner cannot meet the “clear probability” burden for withholding, a fortiori he cannot satisfy the stricter CAT torture standard. Even viewed independently, CAT relief failed for lack of evidence that Mexican officials would acquiesce.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

1. Heightened Proof Expectations for Cartel Cases. Applicants basing claims on familial land ownership or pipeline theft will now confront P. A.-V. whenever they rely primarily on country-condition reports. Specific threats or corroborated communications will be crucial.
2. Relocation Arguments Narrowed. By treating an expert’s statement that safe relocation “temporarily” exists as sufficient to shift the burden back to the applicant, the Seventh Circuit makes relocation a formidable obstacle unless the cartel is shown to have national reach and intent to track the individual.
3. Derivative Persecution Doctrine Trimmed. The opinion emphasises that violence to relatives is not automatically violence to the applicant—reviving a more restrictive reading last seen in Zhou Ji Ni.
4. Procedural Takeaway on Anonymity. The court’s full sealing order, grounded in retaliation fears, may encourage greater use of pseudonyms in immigration appeals involving cartel threats, though it remains fact-intensive.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Withholding of Removal. A mandatory form of protection: if granted, the government cannot deport the individual to a specified country. Standard: “more likely than not” the person will be persecuted.
• Persecution Versus Torture. Persecution = severe harm on account of a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, social group). Torture under CAT = severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted, with government involvement or acquiescence; no motive element required.
• Nexus Requirement. The harm must be because of the protected ground. A crime wave or generalised violence—even if deadly—does not satisfy nexus.
• Derivative Persecution. One can establish persecution through harm to a close relative only when the persecutor’s object is actually to hurt or intimidate the applicant.
• Substantial-Evidence Review. Appellate courts ask only whether a reasonable fact-finder could reach the agency’s conclusion, not whether another view is possible.
• Internal Relocation. Even if danger exists in one locale, the claim fails if the applicant can live safely elsewhere in the country, unless it would be unreasonable (e.g., due to serious illness, unfamiliar language, or universal cartel reach).

5. Conclusion

P. A.-V. v. Bondi reinforces the Seventh Circuit’s strict evidentiary demands for withholding of removal and CAT protection, particularly in the ever-growing subset of cases involving trans-national criminal organizations in Mexico. By insisting on a concrete nexus between cartel violence and the individual applicant, and by treating generalized country conditions as insufficient to negate the possibility of safe internal relocation, the court sets a precedent likely to ripple through immigration courts within the circuit and beyond. Practitioners must now marshal individualised, corroborated evidence of targeting and build a record on nation-wide peril and governmental acquiescence if they hope to succeed where P. A.-V. did not.