## Facts

- Rosario Del Carmen Hernandez-Chacon, a citizen of El Salvador, lived with her two daughters while her partner was in the United States.
- In 2013, a drunken man entered her home at night, demanded sex, grabbed her, and attempted to rape her; she escaped and locked herself in a room.
- Three days later, the same man and two others attacked her while she walked with her daughters, attempted to rape her, beat her severely, and broke her collarbone after she resisted.
- She submitted country-conditions evidence describing extreme levels of violence against women in El Salvador, widespread impunity, and entrenched norms of female subordination.
- She sought asylum and withholding of removal based on (1) membership in a proposed particular social group: “Salvadoran women who have resisted the sexual advances of a gang member,” and (2) actual or imputed political opinion: opposition to norms of female subordination to male dominance.
- The Immigration Judge found her credible, granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, but denied asylum.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal as to asylum and left CAT protection in place.

## Issues

1. Whether the agency erred in rejecting asylum eligibility based on the proposed particular social group, “Salvadoran women who have resisted the sexual advances of a gang member.”
2. Whether the agency adequately evaluated whether she was persecuted, or fears persecution, on account of an actual or imputed political opinion arising from her resistance to gender-based violence and patriarchal norms.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit upheld the agency’s determination that she failed to establish asylum based on the proposed particular social group.
- The court granted the petition for review in part and remanded because the agency did not adequately analyze the political-opinion theory, including imputed political opinion and nexus.
- CAT protection remained undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- An asylum claim based on political opinion requires analysis of whether the applicant held (or was perceived to hold) a political opinion and whether that opinion was “a central reason” for the persecution.
- Imputed political opinion can satisfy the protected-ground requirement even if the applicant did not expressly articulate the opinion.
- Mixed motives do not defeat nexus so long as a protected ground is a central reason for the persecutor’s actions.
- Political-opinion analysis must account for social and political context, including country-conditions evidence, where resistance to gender-based violence may be understood as opposition to an entrenched system of female subordination.
- An agency commits reversible error when it truncates the political-opinion inquiry by treating resistance as mere self-protection without assessing imputation and nexus.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of asylum based on the proposed particular social group but remanded for the agency to properly assess whether the petitioner’s resistance to attempted sexual violence, viewed in El Salvador’s documented gender hierarchy, was treated by her attackers as an actual or imputed anti-patriarchal political opinion that was a central reason for targeting her.


Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, 948 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2020)