This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1998, LEA (P), a Mexican citizen, illegally entered the United States. After a criminal conviction for driving under the influence, the Department of Homeland Security (D) initiated removal proceedings. P accepted voluntary departure and returned to Mexico in May 2011. But he did not stay there long. By August 2011, P had again illegally returned to the United States. D apprehended him and commenced removal proceedings. P conceded removability, but this time sought asylum based upon a claim of persecution allegedly suffered during his brief return to Mexico. Upon returning to Mexico, he had gone to live with his parents in Mexico City. His father operated a neighborhood general store there. La Familia Michoacana, a Mexican drug cartel got very upset with P's father because the father refused to sell the cartel's drugs out of his store. Four armed cartel members asked P to agree to sell the cartel's drugs at his father's store. P declined, and the cartel members threatened him and advised him to reconsider. Four masked men, in the same sport-utility vehicle, attempted to kidnap P, but he managed to escape. P left Mexico City for Tijuana, where two months later, he illegally crossed back into the United States and was thereafter apprehended. P claimed persecution in Mexico based on his membership in the particular social group comprising his father's immediate family. The immigration judge denied relief on the ground that P had not shown he was the victim of persecution. Being a victim of criminal activity is not persecution. The Board reversed. D had stipulated that the immediate family unit of P's father qualifies as a cognizable particular social group. To satisfy the requirements of particularity and social distinction the Board noted that such a determination requires 'a fact-based inquiry made on a case-by-case basis,' and will not be satisfied by 'all social groups that involve family members.' The Board did not perform such an inquiry; instead, it summarily concluded that P fit the bill. The Board denied P's asylum application because of the absence of the necessary nexus between his membership in the group and the persecution. P was targeted 'because he was in a position to provide access to the store, not because of his family membership.' The Attorney General took the case for review.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.