United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 19-1994 

JOSE CECILIO RUIZ-VARELA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, 

United States Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF 

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS 

Before 

Howard, Chief Judge, 

Kayatta, Circuit Judge, 

Casper, District Judge. 

Randy Olen for petitioner. 

Julia J. Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, with whom Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, Civil Division, and Jennifer P. Levings, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, were on brief for respondent. 

December 23, 2020 



 Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
- 2 - 

Casper, District Judge. Petitioner Jose Cecilio Ruiz-Varela 

("Ruiz"), a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a final 

order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

("BIA"), dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration 

judge ("IJ") denying his request for withholding of removal under 

Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Having concluded that there was substantial 

evidence to support the BIA's decision to deny Ruiz's application 

for withholding of removal where he failed to establish the 

required nexus between his treatment by the police and his 

membership in a particular social group (here, his immediate 

family), the Court denies the petition for review. 

I. 

 Ruiz initially entered the United States in 2001. Agents of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") encountered him here 

in 2009 and because he was in the country illegally, he was placed 

in removal proceedings. As a result, Ruiz accepted voluntary 

departure and returned to Honduras in 2009.

 Once back in his hometown in Honduras, Ruiz worked in 

construction, but often worked at his father's pool hall. Although 

they had other family members in the area, the only family members 

to work there were Ruiz and his father. His father's 

establishment, located in the front part of the residence Ruiz 
- 3 - 

shared with his parents, was very successful and was frequented by 

neighbors, friends, family and members of the National Police. 

Sometime after his return, members of the National Police 

made extortionate demands for money in exchange for "protection." 

Neither Ruiz nor his father thought his father should pay these 

demands and they were not going to pay even after the threats 

continued. Even after the police at some point threatened to kill 

his son, Ruiz's father refused the demands and told the officers 

that he was going to report them and expose their scheme. 

Sometime after this response, in late 2011, Ruiz was returning 

home at night with a friend on the friend's motorcycle from a party 

nearby. They came upon a roadblock guarded by military and local 

police. As they proceeded through the roadblock without stopping, 

Ruiz recognized some of the officers there as those who had 

attempted the extortion. According to Ruiz, these officers saw 

them and immediately opened fire at them, firing approximately six 

shots. In response, his friend sped up on the motorcycle and the 

officers then fired fifty to seventy more rounds at the two until 

they fell off the motorcycle. While on the ground, officers began 

to hit and kick them, pointing their weapons at them, ceasing to 

do so eventually as bystanders gathered and protested. As a 

result, Ruiz suffered a gunshot wound to his foot and injuries to 

his ribs, chest and shoulder and was hospitalized. Although Ruiz 

was initially charged, as the police alleged the two men had been 
- 4 - 

armed and had shot at them, the charges against him were dropped. 

The local government investigated the incident, and as a result 

some changes were made within the police, including the removal of 

many of the officers from their posts. Ruiz claimed, however, 

that these developments stirred a strong reprisal from the police 

against him and his father. Over the course of the next year, the 

officers continued with their threats, but the pool hall remained 

open, operated solely by his father during Ruiz's recuperation. 

On one occasion, two officers came to his father's business and 

one pointed out Ruiz to the other and said "look, he is one of the 

ones I told you about." Ruiz also claimed that he was followed by 

police and that officers had told the owners of a gasoline station 

near the checkpoint that Ruiz and his friend had tried to rob their 

business, prompting the owners to threaten to kill them. 

In November 2012, approximately a year after the checkpoint 

incident, Ruiz decided to leave his home country again for the 

United States because of his fear of police reprisals. He entered 

the United States illegally but did not come to the attention of 

immigration authorities until after an arrest by the Smithfield, 

Rhode Island Police in January 2019. On January 31, 2019, the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") filed a Notice to 

Appear ("NTA") charging Ruiz with removability. In response, Ruiz 

conceded removability, but sought withholding of removal under the 
- 5 - 

Convention Against Torture and withholding of removal under INA 

Section 241(b)(3). 

After considering the testimony of Ruiz, the sole witness, 

and the exhibits admitted, the IJ denied the petition for 

withholding of removal on April 22, 2019. The IJ noted that he 

had "significant concerns regarding [Ruiz's] credibility," but 

given corroborative evidence including medical records reflecting 

his hospitalization for a shooting, he would give Ruiz "the benefit 

of the doubt" and "assume [he] was a credible witness." Even doing 

so, the IJ concluded that Ruiz had failed to show the necessary 

nexus between past persecution and any clear probability that his 

life or freedom would be harmed in the future on a protected ground 

under INA Section 241(b)(3). Although recognizing that being shot 

by the police at the checkpoint would be a persecutory act, the IJ 

concluded that the nexus to Ruiz's family status was missing where, 

even as recounted by Ruiz, the cause of the police's conduct at 

the checkpoint was not clear. The IJ noted the same deficiency as 

to the later visit by two officers. The IJ recognized that family 

members may constitute a particular social group for the purposes 

of removal under Section 241(b)(3), but could not conclude "that 

the evidence indicates that the police officers had animus against 

[Ruiz] based on his biological ties." His father continued to 

live in his hometown, running the same pool hall, and his mother 

and siblings continued to live in the area without incident. 
- 6 - 

Although Ruiz stressed that he was the only family member who 

worked with his father in the pool hall, the IJ found that to be 

an insufficient basis for claiming persecution based on family 

membership. Instead, he concluded that "one central reason" Ruiz 

may have been targeted was because of the extortion and demands, 

but also because the police thought that Ruiz and his friend were 

running the roadblock, neither of which was a protected ground. 

Accordingly, the IJ concluded that Ruiz had failed to sustain his 

burden of showing that he was targeted on account of family 

membership, a protected ground.1

On September 5, 2019, the BIA affirmed the IJ's ruling. While 

not reaching every issue in the case, the BIA agreed with the IJ 

that Ruiz had not sustained his burden for withholding of removal 

under INA Section 241(b)(3). In relevant part, the BIA agreed 

that he had not established that his family membership was a 

central reason for his claimed persecution by local police. On 

this point, the BIA observed that while corrupt officers may have 

attempted to extort money from him and his father, Ruiz had not 

identified any evidence indicating a particular animus toward his 

1The IJ made other findings rejecting Ruiz's challenge to the 

service of the NTA, his claim for withholding of removal under 

Section 241(b)(3) based upon political opinion, his argument that 

the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to control his 

persecutors, and Ruiz's petition for protection under CAT, all of 

which Ruiz does not challenge in this appeal. 
- 7 - 

family. Citing that his mother and siblings continued to live in 

the same area without incident, the targeting of the two, the only 

family members working at the business, suggests that they were 

targeted for their wealth by the corrupt officers seeking 

extortionate payments. Accordingly, the BIA affirmed the IJ's 

decision denying withholding of removal. 

Ruiz now brings this timely appeal of the BIA's denial of his 

petition for withholding of removal under INA Section 241(b)(3). 

II. 

This Court reviews the BIA's legal conclusions de novo, but 

applies the more deferential, substantial evidence standard to its 

factual findings. Soeung v. Holder, 677 F.3d 484, 487 (1st Cir. 

2012). The Court accepts the agency's factfinding if it is 

"supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on 

the record considered as a whole." Guzman v. INS, 327 F.3d 11, 15 

(1st Cir. 2003) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992)). That is, we will not reverse unless, viewing the record 

as a whole, "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 

conclude to the contrary." Ahmed v. Holder, 765 F.3d 96, 100 (1st 

Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). As this Court has 

recently noted, "judicial review typically focuses on the final 

decision of the BIA." Loja-Tene v. Barr, 975 F.3d 58, 60 (1st 

Cir. 2020). "But when the BIA embraces the decision of the IJ, 

'merely add[ing] its gloss to the IJ's findings and conclusions, 
- 8 - 

we treat the two decisions as one.'" Id. (quoting Murillo-Robles 

v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 88, 91 (1st Cir. 2016)); see Piedrahita v. 

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 142, 144 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that when “the 

BIA adopts the IJ's opinion and discusses some of the bases for 

the IJ's decision, we have authority to review both the IJ's and 

the BIA's opinions" (quoting Ouk v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 108, 110 

(1st Cir. 2006))). Accordingly, this Court does so here. 

III. 

 The Court concludes that the BIA's finding that Ruiz failed 

to show the requisite nexus between the persecution by the local 

police and his family membership is supported by substantial 

evidence. A petitioner is eligible for withholding of removal to 

his home country if his "life or freedom would be threatened in 

that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Specifically, the petitioner bears the 

burden of showing that he suffered past persecution or, that in 

the absence of past persecution, it is more likely than not that 

he will be persecuted in the future "on account of" one of the 

protected grounds. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); see Yong Gao v. Barr, 

950 F.3d 147, 154 (1st Cir. 2020). One of the protected grounds 

must be "at least 'one central reason' for his persecution." TayChan v. Holder, 699 F.3d 107, 111 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(C)). Here, Ruiz contends 
- 9 - 

that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's finding that he failed to 

show that he faced persecution on account of his membership in a 

particular social group, namely, his immediate family. 

Social group membership, including membership in an immediate 

family, may be grounds for withholding of removal under INA Section 

241(b)(3) if the petitioner suffered or will more likely than not 

suffer future persecution because of his or her membership. See 

Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 2014); 

Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993). Such family 

membership need not be the only reason for persecution, but it 

must be a central reason for persecution, Aldana-Ramos, 757 F.3d 

at 18, as the BIA recognized. Whether cast as the Ruiz-Varela 

family (as the government contends is the only basis asserted by 

Ruiz below) or as his father's son (which Ruiz has cast as 

synonymous for the family relationship upon which he relies), Ruiz 

fails to establish a nexus between the police persecution of him 

and his family status. Villalta-Martinez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 

20, 24-25 (1st Cir. 2018) (concluding that the record did not 

compel a contrary outcome where the BIA found insufficient evidence 

that extortion was motivated by petitioner's relationship with her 

child's father); Loja-Tene, 975 F.3d at 61 (noting that "a 

reviewing court must uphold the agency's factbound determinations 

as long as those determinations are supported by substantial 

evidence in the record, viewed as a whole").
- 10 - 

Ruiz's mother and siblings continued to reside in the area 

without incident.2 Although they shared the familial connection, 

only Ruiz worked with his father in the pool hall, was often 

present when the police made their (unsuccessful) demands and 

shared his father's belief that protection money should not be 

paid to the police. Even if the police only extorted his father, 

there was still substantial evidence to support the BIA's finding 

regarding lack of the requisite nexus. That the local police had 

other ready, familial targets who lived as close as the residence 

attached to the pool hall (i.e., Ruiz's mother) to threaten to 

pressure Ruiz's father into submitting to their demands and did 

not do so, supports that his status as a family member was not a 

central reason for the persecution of Ruiz. Loja-Tene, 975 F.3d 

at 62 (finding substantial evidence for conclusion that family 

ties did not motivate persecution where persecutor made threats to 

petitioner and her father, but sisters remained in the country 

2 Although the record is silent about whether the local police 

knew that Ruiz's father had family in the area other than Ruiz, it 

is not a reasonable inference from this record that they did not. 

Mediouni v. INS, 314 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that BIA 

findings and conclusions must be "based on inferences or 

presumptions that are . . . reasonably grounded in the record, 

viewed as a whole . . ." (quoting Cordero-Trejo v. INS, 40 F.3d 

482, 487 (1st Cir. 1994))). The record reflects that Ruiz's mother 

lived with Ruiz and his father behind the pool hall, his siblings 

lived nearby, both his family and the local police frequented the 

pool hall and Ruiz noted that his family members were at the 

hospital, along with the police, in the wake of the roadblock 

incident. 
- 11 - 

without having been subjected to similar threats). Moreover, as 

the IJ noted and the record otherwise reflects, it is not clear 

that the police conduct when Ruiz and his friend went through the 

nighttime checkpoint, or when an officer later pointed out Ruiz to 

another officer, was because of the refusal to submit to the 

officers' extortionate demands or, rather, because Ruiz had run a 

roadblock. Even if Ruiz and his father believed it to be because 

of his family relationship, we cannot say that the record compels 

a different outcome than the one that the BIA reached here. Jianli 

Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2012). 

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition for review is 

denied.