“The BIA and IJ each did not conduct the required cautious examination of the file to find out whether or not faith could have been one among a number of central causes for the gang members’ persecution of Rivera. … Neither the BIA nor the IJ thought-about the chance that Rivera’s faith may have been a further central cause for his persecution. This was error. The BIA and IJ opinions additionally sign an impermissibly slim view of what it means to be persecuted “on account of” faith. … The BIA and IJ additionally relied on info not supported by substantial proof and failed to think about important proof related to Rivera’s declare that he was persecuted on account of his faith. … The BIA ought to have thought-about whether or not this proof supported the inference {that a} second central cause that Rivera was focused was his non secular views and the actions he took in accordance with these views—like serving to Rivera go away the gang. Along with its authorized error, the BIA erred by not contemplating this proof. … On remand, the BIA ought to conduct the correct authorized evaluation and think about all the credible proof related as to whether Rivera’s faith was a further central cause for his persecution, significantly the undisputed parts of Rivera’s testimony. In doing so, it ought to keep in mind that, even when a protected floor was not the ultimate “set off” for persecution, persecution could, not less than in some circumstances, be “on account of” faith if it’s the apply of a person’s faith which results in him being focused within the first occasion. … [B]ecause the IJ and BIA relied on info not supported by the proof and dedicated authorized error in its nexus evaluation, we notice that the BIA could also be required to revisit the query of “future persecution” after absolutely addressing the query of previous persecution. … For the foregoing causes, we deny the petition for assessment as to Reyes’s particular person asylum declare, grant the petition for assessment as to Rivera’s claims on behalf of himself and his household, vacate partly the BIA’s determination, and remand for additional proceedings in step with this opinion.”
[Hats off to the Sage of Shawnee, Matthew Hoppock! Listen to the oral argument here.]
