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

Heading: Cognizable Social Group

Text: 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, writ- ing 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 pro- posed 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 Cata- lina’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