## Facts

- Respondents were a married couple, Tutsi, born in Burundi to Rwandan refugee parents and citizens of Rwanda through their parents.
- They moved to Rwanda in 1996 and received a valuable parcel of land from the husband’s uncle to build a home.
- After the uncle died, the husband’s aunt claimed he was not part of the family and attempted to sell the land; he litigated and obtained a favorable ruling.
- Following the ruling, the couple received threatening phone calls for over a year, including statements telling them to “go back to Burundi.”
- A cousin who was a major in the national police was identified as one caller and, with other officers, visited the couple’s home multiple times to pressure them to leave.
- The couple entered the United States in September 2006, learned their visas had been canceled, and were placed in removal proceedings for lack of valid entry documents.
- They sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming persecution based on imputed Burundian nationality and membership in a particular social group described as repatriated “old caseload refugees.”

## Issues

1. Whether, under the REAL ID Act’s nexus requirement, the respondents proved that a protected ground was “at least one central reason” for the threats and harassment connected to the land dispute.
2. Whether the record contained sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence of persecutor motive tied to a protected ground rather than personal or economic motives.
3. Whether denial of asylum required denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection on the same facts.

## Decision

- The BIA treated the respondents’ testimony as true because the Immigration Judge made no explicit adverse credibility finding.
- The BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed denial of asylum, holding the respondents did not show that a protected ground was “at least one central reason” for the harm.
- The BIA agreed the record reflected an essentially private family and property dispute driven by economic self-interest, not persecution on account of protected status.
- The BIA affirmed denial of withholding of removal because failure to satisfy the asylum nexus requirement necessarily defeated the higher withholding standard.
- The BIA affirmed denial of CAT protection for lack of proof that respondents were more likely than not to be tortured with government consent or acquiescence.

## Legal Principles

- For asylum applications governed by the REAL ID Act, an applicant must prove a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the persecution.
- A protected ground does not satisfy the nexus requirement if it is merely incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to other motives.
- An applicant must present some evidence—direct or circumstantial—of the persecutor’s motive; speculation is insufficient.
- Harm arising from private family or economic conflicts, without adequate evidence tying motive to a protected ground, does not constitute persecution “on account of” a protected ground.
- Failure to establish eligibility for asylum generally forecloses withholding of removal on the same persecution theory because withholding requires a higher showing.
- CAT relief requires proof of a likelihood of torture with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, not merely harassment or threats involving an official.

## Conclusion

The BIA held that, even accepting the respondents’ account, the threats connected to their land litigation did not meet the REAL ID Act requirement that a protected ground be “at least one central reason” for persecution; the dispute was primarily familial and economic, so asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection were properly denied.


Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208 (B.I.A. 2007)