Opinion ID: 790472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Harm inflicted on account of membership in a particular social group

Text: 45 The IJ held that Michelle Thomas had not demonstrated eligibility for relief on any of the five grounds. We disagree, and hold that the Thomas family constitutes a particular social group within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) because the family demonstrated that the harm they suffered was solely a result of their common and immutable kinship ties with Boss Ronnie. 46 [P]ersecution `on account of' membership in a social group ... includes what the persecutor perceives to be the applicant's membership in a social group. Amanfi v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 719, 730 (9th Cir.2003); see also Popova v. INS, 273 F.3d 1251, 1258 (9th Cir.2001) (To establish a correlation between [petitioner's] persecution and her political opinion and religion, she must show, by direct or circumstantial evidence, her persecutors' motive.) (citations omitted); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir.1997) (In establishing an imputed political opinion, the focus of inquiry turns away from the views of the victim to the views of the persecutor.). 47 The perpetrators of the threats to and abuse of the Thomas family tied that abuse to the Thomas family's relationship to Boss Ronnie. In one incident, the perpetrator asked Michelle if she knew Boss Ronnie. The perpetrator then proceeded to threaten that he would come back and cut [her] throat. In two other incidents, Michelle noticed that some of the attackers wore overalls bearing the logo of Strongshore Construction-the company for which her father-in-law worked as the cruel and racist foreman. Also, each attack or threat occurred after a confrontation of some sort at Strongshore Construction. Michelle's brother-in-law, son to Boss Ronnie, also suffered threats and attacks. His house was broken into, his car repeatedly vandalized, and his family repeatedly threatened. The perpetrators targeted the Thomas family because Boss Ronnie himself was impossible to reach directly. Boss Ronnie's house was like a fortress, with large impenetrable gates. Moreover, Boss Ronnie owned weapons with which to protect himself. 48 The government argues that the threats and violence against the Thomases were merely retaliation for personal conduct or a result of the country's high crime rate. The IJ held, somewhat inartfully, that the harmful conduct was a manifestation of random crime, which in turn sometimes had racial overtones, and rejected the Thomases' alternative explanations, including the link to the animus toward Boss Ronnie on the part of his employees. However, as explained above, the record compels the conclusion that the harm suffered by the Thomases was not the result of random crime, but was perpetrated on account of their family membership, specifically on account of the family relationship with Boss Ronnie. Furthermore, the reason for the animosity toward Boss Ronnie that led to the harm to the family is not relevant; what is critical is that the harm suffered by the Thomases was on account of their membership in a protected group. 49 We decline to hold, as the government urges, that a family can constitute a particular social group only when the alleged persecution on that ground is intertwined with one of the other four grounds enumerated in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). It is true that for kinship ties to be recognizable and discrete such that would-be persecutors could identify [individuals] as members of the purported group, those ties often will be linked to race, religion, or political affiliation. Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 664 (2d Cir.1991); see also In re H-, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 342 (citing Gomez ). Nonetheless, there is nothing in the statute itself, nor in the BIA's interpretation of the relevant provisions, to suggest that membership in a family is insufficient, standing alone, to constitute a particular social group in the context of establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. We agree with the First Circuit that we must follow[] the language of the statute in recognizing that social group persecution can be an independent basis for refugee status. Gebremichael, 10 F.3d at 35 n. 20. 50 The government also argues that recognizing a family as a particular social group will confer refugee status on all victims of vendettas or feuds that have swept in the family of the initial target, and all victims of street wars between rival criminal families. In view of the statutory mechanism as a whole, that concern is unfounded. Once an asylum applicant demonstrates persecution on account of kinship ties, she must still show that the persecution is at the hands of the government or persons or organizations that the government is unable or unwilling to control. Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1487. Further, any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution may be rebutted by showing that the alleged persecution may be avoided by relocation within the country or by a showing of changed circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i). 51 Accordingly, only when the alleged persecution precludes relocation and exceeds the government's ability or will to control can a claim of persecution based on membership in a particular family lead to eligibility for asylum. It is, of course, far more likely that persecution will reach those proportions when kinship ties are mingled with political, religious, racial, or ethnic affinities. However, we see no reason to erect artificial barriers to asylum eligibility merely to address a concern that is more properly resolved elsewhere in the analysis of a particular claim of asylum. Again, we are confident that the statutory mechanism as a whole is capable of separating meritorious claims of persecution on the ground of kinship ties from claims based on mere personal retribution or generalized crime. 52 We therefore hold that the Thomases were targeted on account of their shared, immutable characteristic, namely, their familial relationship with Boss Ronnie. The Thomases were attacked and threatened because they belong to the particular social group of persons related to Boss Ronnie, for the purposes of § 1101. Therefore, the IJ's conclusion that the attacks and threats the Thomas family suffered did not take place on account of one of the five statutory grounds is not supported by substantial evidence.