Opinion ID: 4390527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nexus Between Membership and Persecution

Text: 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