Whether a family relationship constitutes a particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act such that threats made to compel a relative to pay extortion demands satisfy the 'on account of' nexus requirement for asylum eligibility, even when the gang's primary motivation is pecuniary rather than persecution based on the family relationship itself.

No question identified. : 2 ported at 123 F.4th 534. The court’s order denying rehearing (App., infra, 20a) is unreported. 1. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., authorizes the Attorney General, in her discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who is a “refugee,” as defined by the Act. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b) (1) (A). The INA defines a “‘refugee’” as an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to his home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (42) (A). The alien applying for asylum bears the burden of establishing his eligibility. 8 U.S.C. 1158 (b) (1) (B), 1229a(c) (4). To do so, the “applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. 1158 (b) (1) (B) (i). 2. Respondents are Evelyn de Los Angeles Polanco Ortiz (Polanco), Fidel Angel Lopez Quinteros (Lopez), and A.A.L.P. Polanco and Lopez are not legally married, but hold themselves out as husband and wife. App., infra, 6a, 18a n.7. A.A.L.P. is their minor son. Id. at 6a. All three are citizens of El Salvador who entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. Ibid. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against respondents pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (6) (A) (i). App., 3 infra, 6a. Polanco and Lopez conceded that they were removable, but filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Ibid. Lopez listed A.A.L.P. as a derivative beneficiary of his application. In applying for asylum, Lopez stated that he operated a small taxi business and was confronted by gang members who extorted and threatened him. App., infra, 9a-lla. The gang members demanded that he make monthly payments to continue operating his business, and later demanded a lump sum of at least $13,000. Id. at lla. For her part, Polanco stated that she had read text messages the gang members sent to Lopez in which they told him that they knew “where [his] family is” and that he “kn[e]w what w[ould] happen” if he did not comply with their demands. Ibid. Based on those facts, Lopez claimed that the gang threatened him on account of his membership in the particular social group of “business owners,” and Polanco claimed that the gang threatened her on account of her membership in the particular social group of “Lopez’s family.” Id. at 9a-10a. After holding a hearing at which Polanco and Lopez testified, an immigration judge denied respondents’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. App., infra, 7a. The immigration judge found that respondents had testified credibly, but concluded that they 4 had failed to establish that their applications should be granted. Ibid. As relevant here, the immigration judge determined that respondents had failed to show that their alleged persecution was “on account of” their memberships in the particular social groups. Ibid. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Ibid. 3. The court of appeals denied in part and granted in part respondents’ petition for review. App., infra, la-19a. The court upheld the finding that Lopez had failed to show that he had been subject to persecution on account of his status as a business owner. Id. at 9a-10a. But the court vacated the Board’s denial of Polanco’s asylum application. Id. at 10a-l7a. After explaining that “[t]here is no question that a family unit constitutes a particular social group” under the INA, the court of appeals concluded that Polanco’s familial relationship to Lopez was “‘a central reason’ for her past mistreatment by the gang.” App., infra, 10a-lla. The court noted that respondents had testified that if Lopez “did not meet the gang’s monetary de