Immigration – Gangs – Political opinion

Listen to this article

Where the Board of Immigration Appeals denied applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the board’s decision should be vacated because there is no categorical bar to political opinion claims resting on resistance to gang recruitment or opposition to gangs.

Vacated and remanded.

“Victor Geovany Lopez Martinez is a Honduran citizen. He brings a petition for review challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (‘BIA’) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’) based on his political opinions and religion. Lopez contends that, in rejecting these claims, the BIA wrongly concluded that his opposition to gangs categorically is not a political opinion and failed to address adequately his religion-based claims. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. …

“Here, Lopez contends that the BIA erred in narrowing his political opinion claim from generally ‘express[ing] opposition to the gangs’ to the more limited ‘resisting gang recruitment.’ The government responds that the BIA accurately characterized Lopez’s political opinion as ‘opposing the gangs’ at an early point in its decision but concedes the BIA ‘used less-than-perfect wording’ later on. It says nevertheless that we should reject Lopez’s petition because there was no evidence that Lopez held a political opinion in opposition to gangs. As best we can tell, the BIA rejected Lopez’s political opinion claim based on what it views as a categorical rule that ‘resisting gang recruitment does not constitute an imputed or actual political opinion.’ Even if Lopez’s political opinion claim rested only on resistance to gang recruitment (which it did not, as he asserted a broader claim based on gang opposition), the BIA was wrong to adopt a categorical rule that such resistance can never constitute a political opinion.

“That is due in part to the fact that, in certain locations, gangs may take on a quasi-governmental role such that opposition to them is similar to opposing a government. … Whether a particular gang constitutes a political entity or only a criminal one is, of course, a question that is ‘highly context-dependent and fact-intensive.’ …

“The BIA nonetheless concluded that resistance to gang recruitment can never constitute an actual or imputed political opinion. …

“… The through-line for these cases and others like them is instead that a successful applicant must establish a nexus between an actual or imputed political opinion and subsequent persecution by a gang. …

“The nexus requirement means that merely showing that there was gang violence toward someone opposed to the gang or its recruitment efforts is insufficient to establish a connection between the gang’s conduct and a political opinion. … But further factual development could establish that the applicant’s opposition was politically-based and the gang’s conduct was connected to that opinion. …

“We hold today only that there is no categorical bar to political opinion claims resting on resistance to gang recruitment or opposition to gangs. We join other circuits in so concluding. …

“When evaluating political opinion claims based on resisting gang recruitment or gang opposition, the factfinder must determine whether the applicant has an actual or imputed political opinion; if so, it must then conduct a fact-intensive assessment of the claim to determine if there is a nexus between the opinion and the gang’s conduct. Successful applicants will submit persuasive evidence showing, inter alia, (1) that they possess a political opinion, or that the gang attributed a political opinion to them, and (2) a connection between the gang conduct at issue and the actual or imputed political opinion. On remand, the BIA should reevaluate Lopez’s political opinion claims using this approach. …

“We close by addressing whether the BIA failed to adequately address Lopez’s religion-based claims. Lopez contends that the BIA’s brief reference of his ‘seek[ing] asylum based on his religion,’ without any further discussion, requires further explanation. We agree.

“… Here, although Lopez raised his religion-based claims squarely before the IJ and the BIA, the IJ did not address the claims at all and the BIA paid them lip service by giving them a single mention without providing any analysis. That is inadequate. The BIA must consider Lopez’s religion-based claims on remand. …

“For the reasons stated, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Lopez Martinez, et al. v. Blanche (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-080-26) (16 pages) (Aframe, J.) SangYeob Kim, with whom Gilles Bissonnette, Chelsea Eddy, American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, Irene C. Freidel and PAIR Project were on brief, for the petitioners; Nathan P. Warecki and Nixon Peabody LLP on brief for former Immigration Judges, Appellate Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, as amici curiae in support of the petitioners; Adam J. Kessel and Fish & Richardson on brief for Immigration Law Professors, as amici curiae in support of the petitioners; Sabrineh Ardalan and Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program on brief for the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, as amici curiae in support of the petitioners; Jennifer A. Singer, with whom Brett A. Shumate and Shelley R. Goad were on brief, for the respondent (Docket No. 25-1225) (April 23, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.