Gerson Eduardo Alfaro Manzano, a native of El Salvador and a Jehovah's Witness, fled his home country after being threatened and attacked by members of the 18th Street Gang. Manzano had been preaching in the streets to discourage youth from joining gangs, a practice that drew violent retaliation from the gang, including physical assaults, death threats, and an attempt to run his car off the road. While the gang also demanded money, Manzano testified that they explicitly told him to stop preaching or face consequences. An immigration judge granted him withholding of removal but denied his asylum application, ruling that while his religion was a reason for the persecution, it was merely incidental to the gang's primary goal of extortion. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that Manzano would have been targeted regardless of his religious practice.
The Ninth Circuit, writing for the panel, addressed the legal standard for establishing a nexus between a protected ground and persecution in cases involving mixed motives. The court explained that under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), an applicant must show that a protected ground was 'at least one central reason' for the harm. The court rejected the government's argument that the protected ground must be a 'but-for' cause of the persecution. Instead, the court articulated two distinct ways to meet this standard: first, if the protected ground is a but-for cause and plays more than a minor role; or second, if the protected ground, standing alone, would have led the persecutor to harm the applicant. The court used a 'bucket' analogy to illustrate that a motive can be central even if it is not the sole cause, provided it is sufficient on its own to trigger the harm. Applying this to Manzano's case, the court found that the record compelled the conclusion that his religion was a central reason. The gang members explicitly linked the threats to his preaching, and expert testimony confirmed that gangs view Jehovah's Witnesses as a threat to their authority. The court held that even without the desire for extortion, the gang's hatred of his religious activities was sufficient to cause the harm.
The decision remands the case to the Attorney General to exercise discretion on whether to grant Manzano asylum. Because the court found he is statutorily eligible for asylum based on his religion, he is entitled to a discretionary grant. If asylum is denied, he retains his withholding of removal status, which was already granted by the immigration judge. The ruling clarifies that asylum seekers in extortion-plus cases do not need to prove their religion was the only motive, only that it was a central reason sufficient to cause the harm on its own.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download