In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 18-2337 

MAURICIO GONZALEZ RUANO, 

Petitioner, 

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, 

Attorney General of the United States, 

Respondent. 

____________________ 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals. 

No. A200-901-276. 

____________________ 

ARGUED MARCH 29, 2019 — DECIDED APRIL 24, 2019

____________________ 

Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. 

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. In September 2016, members of a 

Mexican drug cartel kidnapped, tortured, and threatened to 

kill petitioner Mauricio Gonzalez Ruano, who was living with 

his family in the Mexican state of Jalisco. The cartel uses brutal violence to terrorize communities throughout Mexico and 

exercises influence at all levels of the Mexican government in 

furtherance of its criminal objectives.
2 No. 18-2337 

Gonzalez Ruano’s persecution began after he refused to 

allow the local cartel leader to “possess” his wife, as the record puts the point euphemistically. As we explain below, 

Gonzalez Ruano and his wife tried to find a way to continue 

living safely in Mexico. Their attempts failed, in shockingly 

brutal ways. On the advice of a Mexican prosecutor, Gonzalez 

Ruano and his wife and two children then fled to the United 

States. The couple surrendered themselves at the border. 

Gonzalez Ruano applied for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

An immigration judge found that Gonzalez Ruano was 

credible and that he would likely be tortured if he returned to 

Mexico. The judge therefore granted relief under the Convention Against Torture. The judge denied his petition for asylum, however, on the ground that Gonzalez Ruano did not 

show a nexus between his persecution and membership in a 

“particular social group,” which is one path toward asylum 

in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals 

agreed with the judge. Gonzalez Ruano has petitioned this 

court for review. We find that the record here compels a finding that the torture and persecution Gonzalez Ruano has suffered in the past and fears in the future were and would be 

because of his membership in the “particular social group” of 

his wife’s family. Gonzalez Ruano thus demonstrated statutory eligibility for asylum in the United States. We GRANT 

his petition for review and REMAND the case to the Board for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
No. 18-2337 3

I. Facts & Procedural History

A. Cartel Violence in Jalisco 

Based on the immigration judge’s unchallenged finding 

that petitioner was credible, we rely on his unrebutted testimony and the judge’s findings to lay out the relevant facts. 

Before fleeing his home, Gonzalez Ruano lived in the state of 

Jalisco, Mexico, with his wife and their two sons. Jalisco is the 

home of a ruthless drug cartel known as the Cartel de Jalisco 

Nueva Generación or CJNG. In the last decade, the CJNG has 

expanded its operations throughout Mexico. It is infamous for 

routinely using brutality. The cartel operates under the creed 

“plata o plomo”—silver or lead—meaning it uses bribery or 

brutal violence to coerce compliance with its demands. 

Dr. Everard Meade testified as an expert witness for Gonzalez Ruano at the hearing on his applications. Dr. Meade explained: “those who’ve tried to stand up to [the CJNG] have 

been mercilessly targeted and kidnapped, tortured and murdered and in some cases, forcibly disappeared. There are 

many others who have co-existed with them through some 

form of cooptation. Sometimes this is about greed . . . most 

cases, however, it’s as much about fear and coercion as it is 

about greed.” 

Regarding the cartel’s widespread influence, Dr. Meade 

testified that CJNG is 

involved in weapons smuggling, money laundering, human smuggling, human trafficking, 

financial fraud. . . . [T]hey’re involved in various 

kinds of assassinations for hire, which are adjunct to political corruption. In other words, 

they’re involved in the full panoply of illegal 
4 No. 18-2337 

activities in Mexico and this . . . expansion of the 

portfolio has increased exponentially since 

2009, to the point that . . . selling illicit drugs in 

the United States is not even their largest business anymore. 

He also explained that the “impunity rate”—the percentage 

of homicides for which no suspect is detained or charged—in 

Mexico is a shocking 98–99%. He also provided examples to 

show how the Mexican government is unable to protect citizens from CJNG as a result of its methods and widespread 

influence. 

B. CJNG Targets Gonzalez Ruano 

Despite living in CJNG territory, Gonzalez Ruano did not 

experience any major problems from the cartel before September 2016. He ran a small shop selling eggs. His wife, Catalina Carbajal de Gonzalez, sold clothes at a separate store. 

Both of their children, who attended school in Jalisco, had 

been born in the United States when the couple had been living legally in California. Gonzalez Ruano and Catalina had 

close relationships with their extended family living in Jalisco. 

As of 2016, they had been living in the same house for fifteen 

years. Before the events that forced him to seek asylum, Gonzalez Ruano had no plans to relocate to the United States.

Gonzalez Ruano was working in his shop in September 

2016 when three men he did not know entered the store. He 

later learned that one of the men was the local leader of the 

CJNG named Francisco Rivera. Rivera approached Gonzalez 

Ruano, grabbed him by the throat, and pointed a gun at his 

neck. He told Gonzalez Ruano that his wife, Catalina, now belonged to him, Rivera. While still gripping his throat and 
No. 18-2337 5

holding the gun to his neck, Rivera told Gonzalez Ruano that 

he knew the names of his children, his daily routine, and 

where Catalina worked. Rivera told Gonzalez Ruano that he 

had to leave Catalina and his home or else he would be killed. 

Stunned, Gonzalez Ruano was unable to speak. The men left 

when another customer entered the store. Gonzalez Ruano 

immediately called his wife to tell her what happened. 

That night, Gonzalez Ruano asked Catalina if she knew 

anything about the men who threatened him. She broke down 

in tears. She told him that Rivera had been threatening her for 

some time in person and over the phone, and that he had “ordered” her to leave Gonzalez Ruano because she was now Rivera’s “property” and had to work for the CJNG.

Three days later, the same men came back to Gonzalez Ruano’s store. Rivera walked up to Gonzalez Ruano, again held 

a gun to him, and asked whether he understood the situation. 

Rivera again said that Catalina belonged to him and that he 

would kill Gonzalez Ruano if he did not leave his wife. As the 

men left, they yelled threats about what would happen to 

Gonzalez Ruano if he did not leave Catalina. 

Gonzalez Ruano was terrified. He immediately closed his 

shop and went home. Catalina was already there, and he told 

her about the encounter. She began sobbing. She told him that 

the day after Rivera had made the first threatening visit to 

Gonzalez Ruano’s shop, Rivera had kidnapped her and raped 

her. In her affidavit, Catalina explained that Rivera and three 

men approached her as she was getting into her car. The men 

forced her into a van and took her to a hotel where Rivera 

raped her. Before taking her back to her car, Rivera again said 

that she belonged to him. He again ordered her to leave Gonzalez Ruano, and he threatened to kill him if she refused. 
6 No. 18-2337 

The couple decided they had no choice but to leave. They 

immediately prepared to flee their hometown. They worked 

to wrap up loose ends, such as collecting their sons’ school 

records, obtaining new passports, and selling a car so that 

they would have enough money to flee.

C. The Kidnapping 

Gonzalez Ruano found a buyer for their extra car in a 

nearby town. On his way to make the exchange, Gonzalez Ruano realized that he was being followed. When he stopped at 

a traffic light, the car that had been following him pulled 

alongside. A man in the car waved a gun to signal him to pull 

over. When the light changed, the other car pulled in front 

and blocked the road. When Gonzalez Ruano also stopped, 

two men got out of their car and forced him at gunpoint into 

their back seat. 

Gonzalez Ruano managed to conceal his cell phone for a 

few minutes, giving him time to send a covert message telling 

Catalina he was being kidnapped and asking her to take care 

of their sons. Then one of the men in the car noticed Gonzalez 

Ruano sending text messages. He grabbed the telephone and 

took it apart. He then put a bag over Gonzalez Ruano’s head 

to blind him.

After driving for approximately one hour, the men 

stopped and took Gonzalez Ruano out of the car without removing the bag from his head. They led him into a house and 

then removed his boots and took his wallet, saying he would 

not need them anymore. They forced him to stand against a 

wall. Gonzalez Ruano could see the floor from under the bag 

placed on his head, and he saw the feet of at least two other 

men in the room with him. After standing for several hours, 
No. 18-2337 7

Gonzalez Ruano heard what sounded like a chair being 

moved across the floor and the footsteps of people entering 

the room. The bag was not removed from his head during 

these events.

Gonzalez Ruano described in gruesome detail what happened next: the beheading of two men as he was forced to remain standing against the wall. Beneath the edge of the bag 

over his head, he could see the head of one victim roll to his 

feet. After the second murder, Gonzalez Ruano heard someone say, “next one.” The men who presumably committed the 

murders forced him to sit in a chair. Someone placed a thin 

metal wire around his neck and began to tighten it, causing 

excruciating pain. 

Certain he was about to be beheaded, Gonzalez Ruano 

blurted out, “May God bless you, I know it is not your fault.” 

This prompted another man, whose presence Gonzalez Ruano had been unaware of, to stop the imminent murder. The 

men began arguing whether to kill Gonzalez Ruano. They abruptly threw him on top of the bodies of the other victims and 

left. The men left him there all night, on top of the corpses, 

with the bag over his head and the wire still around his neck.

The next morning, the kidnappers returned. Again they 

argued about what to do with him. Without explanation, one 

of them grabbed Gonzalez Ruano and put him in a car. After 

driving a while, the car stopped and Gonzalez Ruano was 

pushed out. Before the car drove away, one of the kidnappers 

yelled, “Remember what you need to do, you son of a bitch.” 

Gonzalez Ruano finally managed to remove the bag from his 

head, and he walked until he reached a store. His bare feet 

blistered from walking on the hot pavement, his neck had visible injuries from the wire, and he was covered in the blood of 
8 No. 18-2337 

the two murdered men. People were reluctant to help him. 

They realized he had been targeted by the cartel. He finally 

convinced someone at the store to let him use a telephone, and 

he contacted his wife and son to pick him up.

D. Flight from Mexico to Seek Asylum 

Gonzalez Ruano and Catalina immediately packed suitcases and fled with their two sons early the next morning. 

They sought help from Gonzalez Ruano’s sister in a nearby 

city. On the way to her house, the family noticed a truck was 

following them, but Gonzalez Ruano was able to evade the 

truck by abruptly leaving the highway. His sister allowed 

them to stay in another house she owned.

The next day, Gonzalez Ruano began reaching out to different attorneys for help in reporting the crimes CJNG committed against him and his family. Each attorney he contacted 

refused to take his case or told him that the cartel would not 

be prosecuted or would face only small monetary fines.

Finally, one attorney helped him contact a local prosecutor 

he trusted in Jalisco. The prosecutor told Gonzalez Ruano that 

the CJNG had infiltrated the law enforcement agencies in the 

state. He also told Gonzalez Ruano that he could not guarantee his safety if he stayed in Mexico and that his only option 

was to flee. 

Gonzalez Ruano acted quickly on the prosecutor’s advice. 

He sought expedited passports for himself and his family. 

Two days after they received their passports, Gonzalez Ruano 

and his family arrived in Tijuana. Once they reached the 

United States border, a family member took custody of the 

boys while Gonzalez Ruano and Catalina presented themselves for inspection. Gonzalez Ruano petitioned for asylum 
No. 18-2337 9

under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), withholding of removal under 

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18. 

In February 2017, Catalina received a call from Rivera, of 

the CJNG. He told her he was surprised that she and her family had reached the United States without his knowledge, and 

he warned her that he would be notified if they returned to 

Mexico. Family members of Gonzalez Ruano and Catalina 

have also reported that since they fled, strangers have been 

looking for Gonzalez Ruano. Within five months after their 

flight, his sister was approached approximately twenty times 

by young men she does not know, all asking where he was. 

At his asylum hearing, Gonzalez Ruano introduced evidence to corroborate his story and establish his credibility, including affidavits from family members and news articles. He 

also called Dr. Everard Meade as an expert to testify about the 

CJNG generally and how country conditions in Mexico affected Gonzalez Ruano and his family. Dr. Meade explained 

that because of how CJNG has infiltrated Mexican agencies at 

multiple levels, the CJNG would quickly learn of Gonzalez 

Ruano’s return to Mexico if he were removed from the United 

States.

The immigration judge found that Gonzalez Ruano’s testimony and evidence were consistent and credible. The judge 

granted relief under the Convention Against Torture, finding 

it was more likely than not that if Gonzalez Ruano were returned to Mexico, the CJNG would locate him and torture him 

again. (The government has not appealed the relief under the 

Convention Against Torture, but that relief does not open a 

path to U.S. citizenship for Gonzalez Ruano.) 
10 No. 18-2337 

Immigration law distinguishes between torture and persecution. The judge found that Gonzalez Ruano’s “experiences 

in Mexico—the past threats, the kidnapping, and witnessing 

two murders—do constitute past torture,” and that he had a 

credible fear of future torture if he were returned to Mexico.

Thus the grant of relief under the Convention. Nevertheless, 

the immigration judge denied his application for asylum. The 

judge reasoned that Gonzalez Ruano did not demonstrate a 

nexus between persecution and his membership in a particular social group. That meant he could not establish a wellfounded fear of “persecution” as required by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Instead, the judge found that “the record 

supports the conclusion that [Rivera]. . . desired Catalina and 

personal animosity against the respondent for refusing to follow [Rivera’s] directives motivated CJNG’s action against 

[Gonzalez Ruano], which cannot support a nexus finding.” 

Gonzalez Ruano appealed, and the Board of Immigration 

Appeals affirmed. He now petitions for review, arguing that 

the immigration judge erred in denying asylum. He argues 

that he demonstrated a nexus between the past persecution 

(and feared future persecution) and his membership in a cognizable “particular social group.” We agree. 

II. Analysis

To be eligible for asylum, Gonzalez Ruano must show he 

was “unable or unwilling” to return to Mexico “because of 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account 

of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 

1158(b)(1)(A). One of these five protected grounds must be “at 

least one central reason” for the persecution. § 1158(b)(1)(B); 

W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957, 965 (7th Cir. 2018). Proof of 
No. 18-2337 11

past persecution on one of these protected grounds triggers a 

presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 

C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). 

The government does not contest the immigration judge’s 

findings that Gonzalez Ruano is credible or that he is eligible 

for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The issue before us is whether he established a nexus between his 

persecution and his membership in a cognizable social group. 

A. Scope of Review 

The scope of our review depends on whether the Board’s 

order was free-standing or “merely supplementing” the immigration judge’s opinion. Moab v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 656, 659 

(7th Cir. 2007). “Typically, when the BIA issues a decision, 

that decision becomes the basis for review,” and we are limited to reviewing only the Board’s decision. Id. When the 

Board’s decision is not independent of the immigration 

judge’s opinion, however, “we review the immigration 

judge’s findings as supplemented by the Board’s.” W.G.A., 

900 F.3d at 962. In this case, the Board did not expressly or 

implicitly adopt the immigration judge’s findings and did not 

issue its opinion wholly independent of the one issued by the 

immigration judge. We therefore review the immigration 

judge’s findings as supplemented by the Board’s. 

B. Cognizable Social Group 

On judicial review, Gonzalez Ruano argues that he was 

persecuted because of membership in two social groups as a 

basis for asylum and withholding of removal: (1) members of 

his immediate family; and (2) Mexican individuals who have 

refused to follow CJNG orders. Quoting our decision in Cece 

v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 671 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc), the 
12 No. 18-2337 

immigration judge rejected the second proposed group, writing that a social group cannot be defined merely by the fact of 

persecution or solely by the shared characteristic of facing 

dangers in retaliation for actions they took against alleged 

persecutors. As for the first group, after hearing Gonzalez Ruano’s testimony, the immigration judge construed the proposed social group “to mean the immediate family of Catalina.” 

The government does not challenge the judge’s finding 

that Gonzalez Ruano is a member of a qualifying “particular 

social group,” comprised of his wife’s immediate family, 

within the meaning of § 1101(a)(42)(A). We and other circuits 

have recognized that membership in a nuclear family can satisfy the social group requirement. W.G.A., 900 F.3d at 964 (siblings); Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616, 629 (7th Cir. 2008) 

(same); see also, Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 130 (4th Cir. 

2017) (husband, wife, and two children); Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 

F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004) (parents and one child); Gebremichael v. I.N.S., 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993) (brothers).

The parties debate whether the immigration judge erred 

by focusing on the social group consisting of Catalina’s immediate family rather than Gonzalez Ruano’s immediate family. We do not see any practical difference. Both the immigration judge and the Board defined the social group as Catalina’s immediate family. We see no reason to dispute this interpretation of the evidence. See Escobar v. Holder, 657 F.3d 

537, 542 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Our duty at this stage is to uphold 

the Board’s determination if it is supported by substantial 
No. 18-2337 13

evidence [that is] . . . reasonable, substantial, and probative 

evidence on the record considered as a whole.”).1

C. Nexus Between Membership and Persecution 

The main issue on judicial review is whether the record 

compels a finding that Gonzalez Ruano showed a nexus between the persecution he experienced and his membership in 

his wife’s immediate family. This is “a question of fact that we 

review for substantial evidence.” W.G.A., 900 F.3d at 965. Under this standard, we can reverse the immigration judge’s 

finding “only if we determine that the evidence compels a different result.” Cece, 733 F.3d at 675–76, quoting FH-T v. Holder, 

723 F.3d 833, 838 (7th Cir. 2013). 

To prove his eligibility for asylum, Gonzalez Ruano 

needed to show that the persecution he experienced by CJNG 

was “on account of” of his membership in a particular social 

group. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) & 1158(b)(1)(A)–(B)(i). “The 

 

1 We do not need to decide whether the second social group offered 

by Gonzalez Ruano—people who refused CJNG’s orders—is a cognizable 

social group for purposes of asylum law. During oral argument, the government requested for the first time that we remand this case to the Board 

for further fact-finding on the scope of the social group based on the reasoning of Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189 (BIA 2018). Even 

if this request were timely, and it was not, we would decline to remand. 

Though W-Y-C- was decided after the Board’s decision here, it did not establish a new rule or even clarify an existing one. See W-Y-C- & H-O-B-,

27 I. & N. Dec. at 191, quoting Matter of A-T-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 4, 10 (BIA 

2009). Regardless, W-Y-C- is distinguishable from this case. In W-Y-C-, the 

respondent attempted to argue on appeal to the Board that she was a 

member of a social group that she did not propose to the immigration 

judge. By contrast, Gonzalez Ruano proposed these same groups before 

the immigration judge.
14 No. 18-2337 

protected trait does not have to be the only reason for the persecution, but it ‘cannot play a minor role.’” W.G.A., 900 F.3d 

at 965, quoting Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 44 (BIA 

2017). Because the persecutors are members of the CJNG and 

not the Mexican government, Gonzalez Ruano must also 

show that the government would be unable or unwilling to 

prevent the persecution by CJNG upon his return. Cece, 733 

F.3d at 675. 

Where the alleged persecution is because of membership 

in a family group, “nexus is not established simply because a 

particular social group of family members exists and the family members experience harm.” L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 45 

(no nexus shown between attempted kidnapping and petitioner’s social group comprised of the family of his father; petitioner was targeted for refusing to sell drugs from family 

store, not for his social group); see also Plaza-Ramirez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 282, 286 (7th Cir. 2018) (no nexus shown between gang’s attack on petitioner and his membership in his 

family, including his gang-affiliated cousin; petitioner conceded attack on him was based on mistaken identity). Gonzalez Ruano has put together a record of evidence that compels 

a finding under this standard that the cartel persecuted him 

and threatens to persecute him because of his membership in 

a particular social group. 

1. Persecution or Personal Animosity? 

The immigration judge was correct in saying that, no matter how horrible Gonzalez Ruano’s experiences were, the requirements for asylum are not satisfied if the harm he suffered 

was inflicted solely because of a private quarrel. DuarteSalagosa v. Holder, 775 F.3d 841, 846 (7th Cir. 2014). 
No. 18-2337 15

Membership in the protected group “must be at least one central reason” for the persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). 

This case is similar to W.G.A., where the petitioner sought 

asylum in the United States after receiving multiple death 

threats because his brother had defected from an influential 

Salvadoran gang. As in this case, the immigration judge found 

W.G.A. had not been persecuted on account of his membership in his family. We granted W.G.A.’s petition for review 

because the timing of the persecution, the statements made by 

the persecutors, and the circumstantial evidence corroborating the gang’s motives compelled a finding that W.G.A. was 

persecuted because of his kinship ties. 900 F.3d at 966. We 

acknowledged that gang members may have been motivated 

in part by a personal vendetta against the petitioner, but we 

concluded that the evidence showed that any vendetta against 

W.G.A. stemmed from his relationship to his defecting 

brother. Id. at 967.2

Here, Gonzalez Ruano demonstrated that one central reason the CJNG persecuted him was “on account” of his membership in his immediate family. The evidence shows that, 

just as in W.G.A., any arguably “personal” vendetta against 

 

2 The government argues we should consider this case under PlazaRamirez rather than W.G.A. We are not persuaded. In Plaza-Ramirez, the 

petitioner was unable to establish a nexus to the proposed social group of 

his family, primarily because he conceded the one attack he suffered at the 

hands of a rival gang of his cousin was the result of a mistaken identity. 

908 F.3d at 286. Additionally, after Plaza-Ramirez experienced this isolated attack, he remained in Mexico for another nine months, never filed 

a police report, and did not experience any further persecution. He did not 

apply for asylum until he had already spent more than a decade in the 

United States. Id. at 284. There was also no evidence that other family 

members had been threatened or harmed.
16 No. 18-2337 

Gonzalez Ruano was due to his relationship with his wife, i.e., 

his membership in his wife’s immediate family. Also as in 

W.G.A, the timing of the persecution and statements made by 

the persecutors leave no doubt that he was and remains a target because of his relationship with his wife. 

The government urges us to agree with the immigration 

judge that these events were the result of a personal dispute 

between Gonzalez Ruano and Rivera over Catalina, as if this 

were the story of a love triangle. The testimony, expert report, 

news articles, and affidavits provided by Gonzalez Ruano’s 

family show beyond reasonable dispute that the persecution 

here was not simply a matter of two men fighting over a 

woman. Instead, the record shows that what Gonzalez Ruano 

and his family experienced—sexual violence, attempts of 

forced recruiting, kidnapping, and harrowing death threats—

is consistent with how CJNG terrorizes communities into submission. This view is further supported by the advice Gonzalez Ruano received from the Mexican attorneys he consulted 

and the prosecutor’s warning that he could not protect him. 

As best we can tell, no evidence supports the denial of 

Gonzalez Ruano’s asylum application based on speculation 

that his torture might have been motivated by a cartel leader’s 

personal “desire” for Catalina. Further, the record leaves no 

doubt that the Mexican government would be unable or unwilling to help Gonzalez Ruano avoid further persecution if 

he returned to Mexico. (Recall that it was a government official who advised him to flee in the first place.)

We also find support for our decision in a very similar decision by the Fourth Circuit. In Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 

F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015), a mother from El Salvador was threatened several times at gunpoint by members of a gang because 
No. 18-2337 17

she refused to allow them to recruit her young son. Hernandez-Avalos fled to the United States with her son and applied 

for asylum, arguing that the persecution she experienced was 

due to her membership in her nuclear family. Id. at 949. The 

Board of Immigration Appeals rejected this argument, concluding instead that Hernandez-Avalos “was not threatened 

because of her relationship to her son (i.e. family), but rather 

because she would not consent to her son engaging in a criminal activity.” Id. The Fourth Circuit granted Hernandez-Avalos’s petition for review, finding the Board’s determination to 

be “an excessively narrow reading of the requirement that 

persecution be undertaken on account of membership in a nuclear family.” Id. at 949–50 (quotation marks omitted). The 

court went on to reason that “Hernandez’s relationship to her 

son is why she, and not another person, was threatened with 

death if she did not allow him to join Mara 18, and the gang 

members’ demands leveraged her maternal authority to control her son’s activities.” Id. at 950. 

As in Hernandez-Avalos, the government argues here that 

the harm Gonzalez Ruano experienced resulted from Rivera’s 

attempt to “possess” Catalina, and that the persecution was 

simply a “means to an end,” making Gonzalez Ruano’s relationship to his wife incidental. In other words, goes the argument, he was not persecuted because he is a member of Catalina’s immediate family but because, as her husband, he was 

the one person preventing the CJNG from forcibly recruiting 

her. We confess that this argument—CJNG targeted Gonzalez 

Ruano because they wanted his wife, not because he is her 

husband—draws a finer distinction than we can discern. As 

in Hernandez-Avalos, Gonzalez Ruano’s relationship to his 

wife was the reason he, and not someone else, was targeted. 
18 No. 18-2337 

After oral argument in this court, the government submitted a letter under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) 

with the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Cruz-Guzman v. 

Barr, — F.3d —, 2019 WL 1224104 (6th Cir. 2019). Gonzalez 

Ruano has responded. In Cruz-Guzman, the immigration 

judge denied an asylum application because the petitioner 

failed to establish a nexus between his family and the persecution he faced in El Salvador. The case presents an issue 

quite different from this one, however. Cruz-Guzman fled to 

the United States after becoming entangled in the matters of 

two rival gangs. Sometime after leaving El Salvador, CruzGuzmanʹs mother and younger sister also fled the country after they were targeted by gang members because the mother 

was not able to pay “protection money.” Id. at *3. During his 

asylum hearing, Cruz-Guzman claimed that if he were returned to El Salvador, the gang would retaliate against him 

for his mother’s inability to pay. The Board did not find this 

evidence satisfied the nexus requirement and the Sixth Circuit 

did not find the evidence compelled the opposite conclusion. 

The government argues that we should apply the Sixth 

Circuit’s approach in Cruz-Guzman to the nexus requirement 

here. In Cruz-Guzman, however, the petitioner’s past persecution had nothing to do with his family membership. The 

court’s opinion did not explain in detail the evidence of the 

mother’s debt and the reason the petitioner feared he would 

be held accountable for that debt if he were returned. In this 

case, by contrast, as in W.G.A. and Hernandez-Avalos, the evidence linking the past persecution to family relationships is 

overwhelming. In fact, the evidence here shows that the CJNG 

was persecuting Gonzalez Ruano for the stated purpose of destroying Catalina’s family. Gonzalez Ruano offered compelling evidence of the required nexus between his social group 
No. 18-2337 19

and his persecution; no substantial evidence in the record 

supports a contrary finding. 

2. Threats to Other Family Members 

Finally, we address the government’s contention that Gonzalez Ruano should be denied asylum because no other members of his family were threatened or harmed by the CJNG. To 

downplay the obvious threats against Catalina’s sons, the 

government actually argued that Rivera, by merely expressing knowledge of the children’s names, did not threaten them. 

It’s an interesting suggestion, but it overlooks the fact that Rivera was holding a gun to Gonzalez Ruano when he mentioned that he knew the boys’ names. In the alternative, the 

Government argues the threat was actually against Gonzalez 

Ruano, not the boys themselves. We reject these astonishing 

arguments. They ask us to close our eyes to reality. 

In any event, Gonzalez Ruano did not need to prove that 

the CJNG targeted other members of Catalina’s family to establish that the cartel targeted him on account of his membership in her family. Threats to harm other members of the 

group can certainly be relevant, but they are not essential to 

such an asylum claim. See W.G.A., 900 F.3d at 967 (finding it 

improper for immigration judge to deny asylum based on 

lack of harm to other family members); R.R.D. v. Holder, 746 

F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2014) (asylum statute “does not require 

that all members of that category suffer the same fate”). 

In sum, Gonzalez Ruano’s credible testimony established 

that he was persecuted by members of the CJNG and that the 

Mexican government was unable or unwilling to help him. 

Compelling evidence shows that Gonzalez Ruano’s persecution was due to his status as Catalina’s husband and thus as a 
20 No. 18-2337 

member of a social group comprised of her immediate family 

for purposes of § 1101(a)(42)(A). The immigration judge erred 

in finding that Gonzalez Ruano did not demonstrate a nexus 

between the persecution and his membership in a particular 

social group. He has established his eligibility for asylum.

We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND the case 

to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.