Fear-based

Ruling that (1) for withholding of removal, Petitioner’s family relationship was a central reason for Petitioner's persecution, which resulted from Petitioner's stepfather’s actions to protect family from gang, (2) remand was required to consider whether, pursuant to Zambrano v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 84 (4th Cir. 2017), Petitioner demonstrated changed circumstances in the form of the intensification of a preexisting threat of persecution to excuse the untimeliness of his asylum application, and (3) substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of CAT relief.

Holding that (1) BIA failed to consider relevant evidence in determining that Petitioner failed to show nexus, (2) Petitioner's membership in proposed PSG of "unmarried mothers living under control of gangs" and imputed anti-gang political opinion were one central reason for her harm, (3) IJ erred in finding that Petitioner's proposed PSG did not satisfy particularity and social distinction requirements and that she did not establish an imputed political opinion, and (4) IJ and BIA failed to meaningfully engage with evidence regarding likelihood of torture and acquiescence for CAT relief.

Holding that (1) the BIA's determination that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum and withholding because he failed to show nexus between his past harm and membership in the proposed PSGs of "witnesses of crimes committed by the Zetas" and family of his brother was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the BIA erred when it found that Petitioner could safely relocate within Guatemala; and (3) the BIA must reconsider the government acquiescence element of Petitioner's CAT claim in light of recent Fourth Circuit precedent.   

Permitting Petitioner to allege membership in a particular social group not raised in her opening brief due to her attorney's "poor performance" and holding that the Board committed reversible error by (1) failing to explain why Petitioner's purported particular social group did not pass muster; (2) erroneously requiring that Petitioner establish that she could not reasonably relocate in evaluating the existence of past persecution; and (3) failing to address Petitioner's testimony that she sought the help of police but was turned away in determining government acquiesence.

Holding that the record compelled the conclusion that Petitioner's membership in his family, a particular social group, was at least one central reason that gang members who were trying to extort Petitioner's family attacked and threatened him.

Holding that Petitioner failed to show nexus because he presented no evidence that gangs harassed him in El Salvador on account of his father’s disability.

Ruling that Board’s failure to fully consider Petitioner’s testimony regarding government acquiescence warranted remand of CAT claim.

Holding that, in denying asylum and withholding of removal, agency erred in concluding that gang's extortion and threats were not on account of Petitioner's relationship to her father and agency failed to address key evidence showing nexus.

Holding that the agency legally erred in denying Petitioner CAT relief because it (1) failed to aggregate Petitioner's risk of torture from all three of the entities that Petitioner feared and determine whether that sum exceeded 50% and (2) did not meaningfully engage with or consider country conditions evidence as a whole.

Holding that (1) because the Petitioner was removable based on his commission of an aggravated felony or specific firearm offense, whether Petitioner established, for CAT relief, that the government would acquiesce in his torture is a mixed question of law and fact that falls outside of the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction and (2) the Immigration Judge’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish government acquiescence is subject to de novo review by the BIA.