## Facts

- Three siblings from El Salvador lived in a neighborhood controlled by the MS-13 gang.
- MS-13 members stole money from the two brothers, harassed and beat them, and threatened further harm if they refused to join.
- Gang members threatened to rape or otherwise harm the sister to pressure the brothers’ recruitment.
- The siblings did not report the threats to police, fearing retaliation and believing police would not protect them.
- The siblings learned MS-13 had killed a neighborhood boy after he refused to join.
- Expert testimony described MS-13 as a violent, organized youth gang with significant reach in El Salvador and difficulty for residents to avoid.
- The siblings fled in 2004 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- The Immigration Judge denied all relief; the siblings appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether “Salvadoran youth who have been subjected to recruitment efforts by MS-13 and who have rejected or resisted membership based on personal, moral, and religious opposition” is a cognizable particular social group under INA § 101(a)(42).
2. Whether family members of such youth constitute a cognizable particular social group.
3. Whether the threatened harm was on account of actual or imputed political opinion (opposition to gang activity) sufficient for asylum and withholding.
4. Whether the siblings established eligibility for CAT protection by showing it was more likely than not they would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.

## Decision

- The BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- The BIA held the proposed group of Salvadoran youth resisting MS-13 recruitment on personal, moral, or religious grounds was not a cognizable particular social group.
- The BIA held family members of such youth also were not a cognizable particular social group on this record.
- The BIA found no sufficient nexus between the gang’s actions and a protected ground, including political opinion.
- The BIA concluded the respondents failed to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal.
- The BIA concluded the respondents failed to show a likelihood of torture with government consent or acquiescence as required for CAT relief.

## Legal Principles

- A proposed particular social group must be defined by characteristics meeting the BIA’s requirements, including particularity and societal recognition as a distinct group; groups framed chiefly by resistance to gang recruitment and subjective motives were found insufficient.
- A broadly defined group that could include a large and diffuse segment of society may fail particularity because it lacks clear boundaries.
- Societal recognition requires evidence that the relevant society perceives the proposed group as a discrete class rather than as individuals reacting to crime.
- Although a nuclear family can qualify as a particular social group in some cases, the applicant must show persecution is directed at the family because of that relationship rather than as a means to pressure another target.
- Under INS v. Elias-Zacarias, coercive recruitment and retaliation by a nongovernmental actor generally does not establish persecution on account of political opinion without evidence the persecutor is motivated by the victim’s actual or imputed political opinion.
- Generalized gang violence and criminal motives, without a protected-ground nexus, do not satisfy asylum or withholding standards.
- CAT protection requires proof that torture is more likely than not and that a public official would consent to or acquiesce in the torture; inability to fully control gangs, without acquiescence, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The BIA treated gang recruitment threats as criminally motivated conduct lacking a protected-ground nexus and rejected the proposed gang-resistance and related family-based social groups for failure to satisfy the Board’s requirements for a particular social group, leading to denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.


Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579 (B.I.A. 2008)