NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0337n.06
Case No. 20-4022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED Jul 14, 2021 SILVIA MARITZA SANDOVAL, et al., ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioners, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) )
BEFORE: SILER, MOORE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
THAPAR, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SILER, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 4–6), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Silvia Sandoval entered the United States with her
three children after a jealous woman threatened her life. Sandoval and her children applied for
asylum and withholding of removal, but an Immigration Judge denied their application. The Board
of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Because threats born of romantic jealousy do not establish
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, we deny the petition for review.
I.
Silvia Sandoval is a citizen of El Salvador. She lived in El Salvador with her children and
her husband, Silas. One of their neighbors, Maria, fell in love with Silas and grew jealous of his
marriage. Maria wanted Silas to end his relationship with his wife, but he refused. Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
Maria was determined to have Silas to herself, so she started sending Silvia threatening
messages. At the start, she communicated through intermediaries: She first asked a gang member
to make the threats, and then she told Silvia’s cousin and aunt that she would make Silvia
disappear. Before long, Maria started approaching Silvia herself. She hopped over Silvia’s fence
and yelled that Silvia would die if she didn’t let Silas go. Then she did the same thing again, but
armed with a knife. Silvia filed a police report and fled to the United States with her children.
Silas soon followed.
Silvia and the children applied for asylum and withholding of removal. They argued that
they were persecuted because of their membership in Silas’s family. Although the Immigration
Judge found Silvia’s testimony credible, she found that Maria was not motivated by animus against
the family and denied the applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Silvia and
her three children now petition for review.
II.
To be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, Silvia and her children must show at
least a “well-founded fear” that they would be persecuted in El Salvador because of their “race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A); Skripkov v. Barr, 966 F.3d 480, 492 (6th Cir.
2020). The petitioners argue that they have been persecuted because of their membership in a
particular social group—that is, as members of Silas’s family. The BIA assumed that kinship with
Silas could constitute a protected social group (and, for purposes of review, so do we). But it
found that Silvia and her children were not persecuted because of their membership in that group.
We review this finding for substantial evidence. Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491,
497 (6th Cir. 2015). That means we must accept it as “conclusive unless any reasonable
-2- Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 498 (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B)).
Here, the record supports the determination that Silvia “was a victim of [a] crime motivated
by personal animus,” not by animus against members of Silas’s family. A.R. at 4. As the
petitioners explain, “Maria was almost certainly jealous of Silvia and the evidence definitely points
to her wanting Silvia out of the way so she could freely pursue her relationship with Silas.” Pet’r
Br. 12. But romantic jealousy is not a statutorily protected ground for asylum or withholding of
removal. And as the Immigration Judge noted, “there appear to be no threats or any harm . . . done
to any of the children whatsoever.” A.R. at 62. The targeted nature of the threats is further
evidence that Maria was not motivated by a desire to harm members of Silas’s family. Reasonable
adjudicators would not be compelled to conclude otherwise.
Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Silvia and her children were not
persecuted because of a statutorily protected ground. For that reason, they are not eligible for
asylum or withholding of removal. Their petition is denied.
-3- Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The IJ, BIA, and the majority get
the facts all right but draw all the wrong conclusions. Because the record evidence compels a
finding that Silvia Maritza Sandoval showed a nexus between the persecution she experienced and
her membership in her husband’s nuclear family, I respectfully dissent.
The IJ aptly summarized the relevant facts of this case. Maria, a neighbor of Sandoval,
“wanted to get [Sandoval] out of the way . . . so that [Maria] could take over the relationship and
have [Sandoval] and her children gone from the picture.” IJ Decision at 14 (Administrative Record
(“A.R.”) at 65). Initially, Maria had no problems with Sandoval. Id. at 6 (A.R. at 57). Only after
Sandoval married her husband, Silas, and they had two children did Maria begin making death
threats against Sandoval, especially after it became clear that Silas was not going to leave
Sandoval. Id. at 5–6 (A.R. at 56–57); Hr’g Tr. at 25–26 (A.R. at 111–12). Maria essentially
wanted to dismantle the Sandoval family, so that Maria alone could be with Silas. Maria began
persecuting Sandoval in an effort to accomplish this goal. Maria verbally and physically
threatened Sandoval. IJ Decision at 4–5 (A.R. at 55–56). She also sent death threats through
Sandoval’s family members and enlisted a local gang member to threaten Sandoval. Id.
Where the majority and I part ways is on what these facts actually mean. The IJ, BIA, and
majority consider Maria’s persecution of Sandoval to be motivated solely by personal animus
against Sandoval. I believe, however, that these facts clearly compel us to conclude that personal
animus alone did not motivate Maria to target Sandoval. Maria also persecuted Sandoval because
of her membership in Silas’s family.
Asylum seekers must demonstrate that they were “persecuted on account of or because of”
their membership in a protected category, such as a particular social group. Marku v. Ashcroft,
380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004). Although a persecutor may have multiple, or “mixed,” motives,
-4- Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
id. at 988 n.10, with respect to asylum claims, “the applicant must establish that race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least
one central reason for persecuting the applicant,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (emphasis added).1
Applicants cannot rely “solely” on “personal matters” to show that they were persecuted because
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0337n.06
Case No. 20-4022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED Jul 14, 2021 SILVIA MARITZA SANDOVAL, et al., ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioners, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) APPEALS Respondent. ) )
BEFORE: SILER, MOORE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
THAPAR, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SILER, J., joined. MOORE, J. (pp. 4–6), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Silvia Sandoval entered the United States with her
three children after a jealous woman threatened her life. Sandoval and her children applied for
asylum and withholding of removal, but an Immigration Judge denied their application. The Board
of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Because threats born of romantic jealousy do not establish
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, we deny the petition for review.
I.
Silvia Sandoval is a citizen of El Salvador. She lived in El Salvador with her children and
her husband, Silas. One of their neighbors, Maria, fell in love with Silas and grew jealous of his
marriage. Maria wanted Silas to end his relationship with his wife, but he refused. Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
Maria was determined to have Silas to herself, so she started sending Silvia threatening
messages. At the start, she communicated through intermediaries: She first asked a gang member
to make the threats, and then she told Silvia’s cousin and aunt that she would make Silvia
disappear. Before long, Maria started approaching Silvia herself. She hopped over Silvia’s fence
and yelled that Silvia would die if she didn’t let Silas go. Then she did the same thing again, but
armed with a knife. Silvia filed a police report and fled to the United States with her children.
Silas soon followed.
Silvia and the children applied for asylum and withholding of removal. They argued that
they were persecuted because of their membership in Silas’s family. Although the Immigration
Judge found Silvia’s testimony credible, she found that Maria was not motivated by animus against
the family and denied the applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Silvia and
her three children now petition for review.
II.
To be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, Silvia and her children must show at
least a “well-founded fear” that they would be persecuted in El Salvador because of their “race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A); Skripkov v. Barr, 966 F.3d 480, 492 (6th Cir.
2020). The petitioners argue that they have been persecuted because of their membership in a
particular social group—that is, as members of Silas’s family. The BIA assumed that kinship with
Silas could constitute a protected social group (and, for purposes of review, so do we). But it
found that Silvia and her children were not persecuted because of their membership in that group.
We review this finding for substantial evidence. Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491,
497 (6th Cir. 2015). That means we must accept it as “conclusive unless any reasonable
-2- Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 498 (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B)).
Here, the record supports the determination that Silvia “was a victim of [a] crime motivated
by personal animus,” not by animus against members of Silas’s family. A.R. at 4. As the
petitioners explain, “Maria was almost certainly jealous of Silvia and the evidence definitely points
to her wanting Silvia out of the way so she could freely pursue her relationship with Silas.” Pet’r
Br. 12. But romantic jealousy is not a statutorily protected ground for asylum or withholding of
removal. And as the Immigration Judge noted, “there appear to be no threats or any harm . . . done
to any of the children whatsoever.” A.R. at 62. The targeted nature of the threats is further
evidence that Maria was not motivated by a desire to harm members of Silas’s family. Reasonable
adjudicators would not be compelled to conclude otherwise.
Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Silvia and her children were not
persecuted because of a statutorily protected ground. For that reason, they are not eligible for
asylum or withholding of removal. Their petition is denied.
-3- Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The IJ, BIA, and the majority get
the facts all right but draw all the wrong conclusions. Because the record evidence compels a
finding that Silvia Maritza Sandoval showed a nexus between the persecution she experienced and
her membership in her husband’s nuclear family, I respectfully dissent.
The IJ aptly summarized the relevant facts of this case. Maria, a neighbor of Sandoval,
“wanted to get [Sandoval] out of the way . . . so that [Maria] could take over the relationship and
have [Sandoval] and her children gone from the picture.” IJ Decision at 14 (Administrative Record
(“A.R.”) at 65). Initially, Maria had no problems with Sandoval. Id. at 6 (A.R. at 57). Only after
Sandoval married her husband, Silas, and they had two children did Maria begin making death
threats against Sandoval, especially after it became clear that Silas was not going to leave
Sandoval. Id. at 5–6 (A.R. at 56–57); Hr’g Tr. at 25–26 (A.R. at 111–12). Maria essentially
wanted to dismantle the Sandoval family, so that Maria alone could be with Silas. Maria began
persecuting Sandoval in an effort to accomplish this goal. Maria verbally and physically
threatened Sandoval. IJ Decision at 4–5 (A.R. at 55–56). She also sent death threats through
Sandoval’s family members and enlisted a local gang member to threaten Sandoval. Id.
Where the majority and I part ways is on what these facts actually mean. The IJ, BIA, and
majority consider Maria’s persecution of Sandoval to be motivated solely by personal animus
against Sandoval. I believe, however, that these facts clearly compel us to conclude that personal
animus alone did not motivate Maria to target Sandoval. Maria also persecuted Sandoval because
of her membership in Silas’s family.
Asylum seekers must demonstrate that they were “persecuted on account of or because of”
their membership in a protected category, such as a particular social group. Marku v. Ashcroft,
380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004). Although a persecutor may have multiple, or “mixed,” motives,
-4- Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
id. at 988 n.10, with respect to asylum claims, “the applicant must establish that race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least
one central reason for persecuting the applicant,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (emphasis added).1
Applicants cannot rely “solely” on “personal matters” to show that they were persecuted because
of their membership in a protected category. Zoarab v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir.
2008) (emphasis added). If, however, “there is a nexus between the persecution and the
membership in a particular social group, the simultaneous existence of a personal dispute does not
eliminate that nexus.” Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602, 608 (6th Cir. 2010).
Although Maria had a personal dispute with Sandoval, that dispute was inextricably
intertwined with Sandoval’s membership in Silas’s nuclear family.2 But for Sandoval’s unique
relationship with Silas, her status as his wife and the mother of his children, Maria would not have
targeted her. The IJ explicitly determined that Maria’s goal was more than simply being in a
romantic relationship with Silas; she wanted to remove Sandoval and her children from their
family home, so that Maria alone could be with Silas. IJ Decision at 14 (A.R. at 65). The record
clearly demonstrates that Maria did not just hate Sandoval or simply desire Silas. Her goal was to
break up the nuclear Sandoval family as it currently existed. If Sandoval renounced her husband,
took her children, and left their family home, then she would be safe. See Al-Ghorbani v. Holder,
1 The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial Sandoval’s withholding-of-removal claim based on a failure to establish a nexus “between the harm she fears and one of the five protected grounds.” BIA Decision at 2 (A.R. at 4). “[A]pplicants for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) must demonstrate that a protected ground was at least one reason for their persecution.” Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253, 274 (6th Cir. 2020) (emphasis added). We have held that the withholding statute’s “a reason” is a weaker burden of proof than the asylum statute’s “a central reason.” Id. at 272. Because I believe that the record clearly compels a finding that Sandoval’s familial status was “a central reason” for her persecution for purposes of her asylum claim, she has necessarily established that her familial status was also “a reason” for her persecution for purposes of her withholding-of-removal claim. 2 This circuit and several others have recognized that membership in the same family constitutes a cognizable social group that can serve as a protected category. See Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 995 (6th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).
-5- Case No. 20-4022, Sandoval v. Garland
585 F.3d 980, 997 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Persecution is defined as ‘the infliction of harm or suffering
by the government, or persons the government is unwilling or unable to control, to overcome a
characteristic of the victim.’” (quoting Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2009))).
The IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that this was solely a personal dispute rests on “an
excessively narrow reading of the requirement that persecution be undertaken ‘on account of
membership in a nuclear family.’” Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015).
To argue that Maria targeted Sandoval because she was keeping Silas from leaving their family
and not because she was Silas’s wife and the mother of his two children draws too fine a distinction
between persecution “on account of membership in a nuclear family” and a purely personal
vendetta than logic can tolerate. Sandoval’s enduring relationship with her husband and
fundamental position in Silas’s family was the reason that Sandoval, and no one else, was targeted.
See id. at 950. Thus, it is unreasonable to conclude that Sandoval’s familial status is not at least
one central reason for her persecution. See Portillo Flores v. Garland, --- F.4th ----, No. 19-1591,
2021 WL 2655334 at *8–9 (4th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (finding that nexus existed when a local gang
persecuted the petitioner because the gang leader wanted to date the petitioner’s sister); Gonzalez
Ruano v. Barr, 922 F.3d 346, 353–56 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding that nexus existed when a local gang
persecuted the petitioner because the gang leader wanted the petitioner’s wife); see also
Enamorado-Rodriguez v. Barr, 941 F.3d 589, 596–97 (1st Cir. 2019) (finding that nexus existed
because the petitioner’s paternal grandparents persecuted him because of his relationship to his
mother whom they hated). Because the record clearly compels the conclusion that Sandoval was
persecuted due to her status as Silas’s wife and the mother of his children, I respectfully dissent.
I would remand the case back to the BIA to determine if Sandoval has established the other
required elements for her asylum and withholding-of-removal claims.
-6-