FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALICIA NARANJO GARCIA, No. 19-72803 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A215-670-558 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 16, 2020 Seattle, Washington Filed February 18, 2021 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Stephen R. Bough, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge Gould * The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 2 NARANJO GARCIA V. WILKINSON SUMMARY ** Immigration Granting in part Alicia Naranjo Garcia’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel concluded that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Garcia was not persecuted on account of her membership in social groups comprised of her family or property owners. As an initial matter, because the Board assumed without explicitly deciding that Garcia’s social groups comprised of her family or property owners were cognizable, the panel assumed for the sake of argument that both social groups were cognizable. The panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Garcia failed to establish a nexus between her persecution and her status as a property owner. The panel explained that it read the Board’s decision as recognizing that property ownership was a cause—and moreover, the real reason— Garcia was targeted, but still found that she was not targeted “on account of” property ownership. The panel wrote that under this court’s case law, it is sufficient under mixed- motive precedent for the petitioner to show that a protected ground was a cause of the persecutors’ acts. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. NARANJO GARCIA V. WILKINSON 3 The panel held that the Board also erred in its analysis of nexus based on Garcia’s family association. Observing that there is a fine line between showing “animus” toward family, which does establish nexus, and “purely personal retribution,” which does not, the panel wrote that the Board’s analysis of this issue ignored pertinent and uncontroverted evidence. The panel wrote that sweeping retaliation towards a family unit over time, such as was the case here, can demonstrate a kind of “animus” distinct from “purely personal retribution.” The panel explained that such targeting is sufficient to demonstrate nexus if the petitioner shows via uncontradicted testimony that persecutors specifically sought out the particular social group of family. The panel remanded for the agency to clarify its asylum nexus determination, and to analyze in the first instance whether Garcia’s property ownership or family membership are cognizable social groups in this context, and whether the other elements of Garcia’s asylum claim were satisfied. The panel also remanded Garcia’s withholding claim because the Board’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals