BRENDA BEATRIZ ORGANIZ-PEREZ DE LORENZO, C.E.L-O, and L.B.L-O. v. PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued April 16, 2024
Decided January 12, 2026
Before
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2767
BRENDA BEATRIZ ORGANIZ-PEREZ
DE LORENZO, C.E.L-O, and L.B.L-O.,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA J. BONDI,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.1
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A203-495-638, A203-494-267, A203-
495-639
O R D E R
Brenda Beatriz Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo and her two minor children petition
for review of the denial of Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c), Attorney General Pamela J.
Bondi is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Merrick Garland as
Respondent.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 7 --

No. 23-2767 Page 2
(“CAT”).2 The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied her application, and the Board of
Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirmed. Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo argues her
case should be remanded because the IJ, in denying her application, relied on a decision
issued by the Attorney General that had been vacated during the pendency of her
appeal to the Board. But because the Board found the IJ’s decision legally sound despite
any reliance on the decision, we deny Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s petition for review.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo and her two minor children are citizens of Guatemala.
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo was married to Ezequias Lorenzo Tomas, and he is the
father of her two children. Her husband came to the United States sometime in 2015 to
provide for their family. While in Guatemala, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo lived with her
two children, her parents, and her three siblings. And even though Organiz-Perez De
Lorenzo had been unemployed in Guatemala, her husband sent her around $130 each
month.
In December 2018, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo received a series of phone calls
from an unidentified man who threatened to harm her or kidnap her children unless
she gave him money. The caller knew both Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo and her
husband’s names and that she had two children. The caller said he knew Organiz-Perez
De Lorenzo had money because her husband lived in the United States. In total,
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo received ten phone calls from this caller, but she never
received any in-person threats from him. Because she was afraid the caller was
watching her, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo never reported the threats to the police.
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo and her husband tried to gather money to pay the
caller, but they were unsuccessful. So, “out of fear,” Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo traveled
to the United States with her two children in February 2019. While Organiz-Perez De
Lorenzo has been in the United States, she and her family in Guatemala have not
received any threatening phone calls.
2 Brenda Beatriz Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo refers to her last name as Organiz-Perez De
Lorenzo, and so we will do the same. Also, because Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s
children are riders on her application, our references to Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s
application refers to all of their claims.

-- 2 of 7 --

No. 23-2767 Page 3
On March 4, 2019, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo and her children entered the
United States without being admitted or paroled. The government instituted removal
proceedings against them for entering the country without permission. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
B. Removal Proceedings
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under CAT. On August 21, 2020, an IJ conducted a hearing on the
applications. While finding Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo credible, the IJ denied Organiz-
Perez De Lorenzo’s application and ordered that she and her children be removed to
Guatemala.
With respect to Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims, the IJ determined the threats did not rise to the level of past persecution. First,
the IJ found the calls were not credible threats of imminent death or grave bodily harm.
Instead, in the IJ’s view, the unfulfilled threats amounted to mere harassment. Second,
assuming the threats did rise to the requisite level, the IJ reasoned Organiz-Perez De
Lorenzo failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the purported harm and her
claimed protected social group of “women, a single mother, with a husband who is
living in the United States and is wealthy by Guatemalan standards.” On this front, the
IJ concluded the proffered social group was incognizable, and even if it was cognizable,
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo failed to connect the harm to her membership in the social
group.3 The evidence, to the IJ, showed “no animus” but, rather, the caller targeted her
because he “believed she had money” and “not on the account of any protected
ground.” Third, the IJ found her claim suffered from another independent flaw: she
failed to show the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to protect her from
the unknown caller. Indeed, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo “never called the police,” and
the IJ could not “just presume that the police would not help” her. What’s more,
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo failed to show the IJ that it would be unreasonable for her to
relocate within Guatemala, even though she previously lived in a different city without
any problems.
3 Citing Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (“Matter of A-B- I”), the IJ
concluded that Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s particular social group was not cognizable.

-- 3 of 7 --

No. 23-2767 Page 4
The IJ also determined that Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s asylum and withholding
of removal applications failed because she did not possess a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
Finally, the IJ rejected Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s claim for CAT protection. The
IJ reiterated Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo did not demonstrate harm rising to either past
or future persecution. Likewise, the IJ also noted Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s failure to
show she could not internally relocate within Guatemala doomed her claim for
protection under CAT. Nor, the IJ continued, did Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo show
flagrant human rights abuses towards individual similarly situated to herself or that a
public official would acquiesce to any torture she allegedly might suffer.
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo appealed the denial of her claims to the Board on
August 23, 2023. The Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed her
appeal. She now petitions this Court for review.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo challenges the denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The thrust of her argument
rests on an intervening change of law regarding what constitutes a protected social
group. Specifically, the IJ cited a decision that was vacated by the Attorney General
during the pendency of Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s appeal to the Board. The Board, in
affirming the IJ’s decision, recognized the change in law but did “not rely upon” the
decision and affirmed because Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo did not meet her burden of
establishing eligibility for relief.
A. Legal Framework
When the Board adopts the view of the IJ and affirms its findings while adding
additional analysis, we review both opinions and affirm if their factual findings are
supported by substantial evidence. Osorio-Morales v. Garland, 72 F.4th 738, 741 (7th Cir.
2023). We review the legal conclusions de novo. Mateo-Mateo v. Garland, 124 F.4th 470,
474 (7th Cir. 2024).
To qualify for asylum, a petitioner “bears the burden of proving that [s]he is a
‘refugee’ within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Mateo-Mateo, 124
F.4th at 474 (quoting Osorio-Morales, 72 F.4th at 742). To satisfy that burden, the

-- 4 of 7 --

No. 23-2767 Page 5
petitioner must demonstrate she is “unable or unwilling” to return to her country
“because of [past] persecution or a well-founded fear of [future] persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). Regardless of whether the petitioner seeks
relief because of past or future persecution, we have described this as a “nexus”
requirement, meaning to receive asylum the applicant must “demonstrate that [she]
was [or will be] persecuted ‘on account of’ [her] membership in the proffered social
group.” de Paz-Peraza v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 390, 394 (7th Cir. 2025) (quoting Granados Arias
v. Garland, 69 F.4th 454, 462 (7th Cir. 2023)). In other words, the petitioner must show
that “‘the persecution or her well[-]founded fear of persecution is based on her
membership’ in the identified social group.” Granados Arias, 69 F.4th at 462 (quoting
Melnik v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 278, 285 (7th Cir. 2018)).
The legal standards for asylum and withholding of removal are very similar. See
Martinez-Martinez v. Bondi, 147 F.4th 831, 835 (7th Cir. 2025) (“Statutory withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) involves the same protected grounds as
asylum”). The principal difference is that under withholding, the standard for future
persecution is more stringent. Id.
Additionally, for Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal to be successful under the Immigration and Nationality Act,
she must show the persecution is inflicted “by the government or by private actors
whom the government is unable or unwilling to control.” Mateo-Mateo, 124 F. 4th at 474.
And we have held “it reasonable—even in cases of extreme violence—to expect asylum
seekers to have sought help from the authorities before concluding that their country is
unable or unwilling to protect them.” Osorio-Morales, 72 F.4th at 742 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo must also show that she cannot reasonably
relocate within Guatemala to avoid the alleged well-founded fear of future harm. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i).
To qualify for relief under the CAT, an applicant must “establish that it is more
likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed.” Mabuneza v. Garland, 16
F.4th 1222, 1225 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). To determine whether
an applicant has met her burden under the CAT, the IJ must address the regulatory
factors, including evidence of past torture, ability to relocate within the country,
evidence of grave human rights violations, and other relevant country conditions. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3)(i)–(iv); Orellana-Arias v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 476, 489 (7th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, we have held “[t]o be eligible for … protection under the CAT, an

-- 5 of 7 --

No. 23-2767 Page 6
applicant must be unable to reasonably relocate to safety within [her] country of
nationality.” Singh v. Bondi, 141 F.4th 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2025). And like asylum and
withholding of removal, where the perpetrator is a private actor, the petitioner must
show that the country’s government has “acquiesce[d] in any torture.” Herrera-Garcia v.
Barr, 918 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2019).
B. Analysis
Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo argues we must send the case back to the IJ because
the law governing what constitutes a “particular social group” for asylum claims
changed during the pendency of her case before the immigration administrative
tribunals. See Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021).4 The Board, Organiz-Perez
De Lorenzo argues, was therefore wrong to affirm the IJ’s decision without sending it
back for the IJ to conduct a new analysis.
We need not dwell on this argument because, as the Board recognized, any shift
in the legal framework governing what constitutes a particular social group alone
cannot save Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s claims, which failed for multiple reasons. Even
assuming Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo alleged a cognizable social group of “women, a
single mother, with a husband who is living in the United States and is wealthy by
Guatemalan standards,” she failed to show a nexus between the alleged persecution
and her membership in the proffered group. Critically, on appeal, she does not
challenge that finding.
Furthermore, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo does not question the IJ’s other
independently sufficient findings for why he denied her asylum application. She does
not argue the threats she received crossed the threshold into persecution, the
Guatemalan authorities were unable or unwilling to help prevent any harm to her or
her children, or that, to the extent her application rested on a well-founded fear of
4 We note that the Attorney General has since overruled Matter of A-B-, reinstating the
prior legal framework the IJ initially used to deny Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s claim
that “women, a single mother, with a husband who is living in the United States and is
wealthy by Guatemalan standards” was a legally unsound social group under the
Immigration and Nationality Act. See Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I. & N. Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025).
But as discussed below, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s petition suffers from other
independently fatal flaws.

-- 6 of 7 --

No. 23-2767 Page 7
future persecution, she could not reasonably relocate within Guatemala. These findings
defeat her asylum claim, and she lodges no objection to them.
Thus, we find that the Board did not err when it adopted and affirmed the IJ’s
decision because it affirmed the denial of Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s application on
dispositive issues without reliance on any flawed portions of the IJ’s decision.
Draganova v. INS, 82 F.3d 716, 720 (7th Cir. 1996). In other words, we find no legal error
because the Board correctly concluded that the IJ’s denial of the requested relief could
be affirmed without it having to rely on any decision regarding whether Organiz-Perez
De Lorenzo proffered a cognizable social group. Because Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo
“cannot establish eligibility for asylum, her remaining claims” for withholding of
removal and protection under the CAT “fail as well.” Cui v. Garland, 71 F.4th 592, 598
(7th Cir. 2023).
Finally, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo does not contest the merits of the IJ’s
decision, so she has waived any challenge to them. Gulomjonov v. Bondi, 131 F.4th 601,
612 (7th Cir. 2025) (finding waiver appropriate where the petitioner’s arguments were
“perfunctory”); White v. United States, 8 F.4th 547, 552 (7th Cir. 2021) (“A party that
omits from its opening appellate brief any argument in support of its position waives or
abandons that party’s claim on appeal.”). We are sympathetic to Organiz-Perez De
Lorenzo and her family. But she has failed to demonstrate eligibility for the relief she
seeks.
III. CONCLUSION
The Board correctly adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision because dispositive
issues governing Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo’s application were decided without
reliance on whether she had proffered a cognizable “particular social group.”
Moreover, Organiz-Perez De Lorenzo does not challenge specifically the factual
findings related to the denial of her application, so we find any review of those waived.
Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review.

-- 7 of 7 --