Seidi Maricela Serpas- Villalobos v. PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 29, 2025*
Decided November 21, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-3264
SEIDI MARICELA SERPAS-
VILLALOBOS, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General
of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A208-740-168, A208-740-169, and
A208-740-170
ORDER
Seidi Maricela Serpas-Villalobos and her two children, citizens of El Salvador,
challenge the denial of Serpas-Villalobos’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denied her claims, finding that Serpas-Villalobos had not demonstrated any of the
* We decided the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present
the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not have significantly aided the court. F ED . R.
A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-3264 Page 2
elements necessary to qualify as a “refugee” under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
Because Serpas-Villalobos has not demonstrated a nexus between the particular social
groups in which she claims membership and any persecution she experienced, we deny
her petition for review.
Serpas-Villalobos’s asylum claim revolves around three interactions with the MS-
13 gang in 2015. In early July 2015, MS-13 gang members approached Serpas-Villalobos’s
son Jonathan, who was ten years old at the time. The gang members tried to recruit
Jonathan to spy on a rival gang, the 18th Street Gang, and to help MS-13 collect rent. After
the incident, Jonathan told his mother what happened and said the gang threatened to
kill him, his mother, and his sister if he did not cooperate. Later in July, MS-13 members
were near Serpas-Villalobos’s house when the police arrived to arrest a neighbor.
Thinking Serpas-Villalobos had called the police, a gang member named Pantero pushed
a gun into Serpas-Villalobos’s chest and threatened to kill her. Serpas-Villalobos reported
Pantero to the police, who arrested Pantero and detained him for seventy-two hours.
Upon release, Pantero threatened Serpas-Villalobos again, warning her that next time he
would pull the trigger. After these incidents, Serpas-Villalobos and her children moved
an hour away, to another area of their city. But in August 2015, MS-13 approached
Jonathan and again threatened to kill him and his family if he refused to work for the
gang.
In November 2015, Serpas-Villalobos decided to leave El Salvador with her
children and travel to the United States, where her partner lived. Soon after entering the
country, Immigration & Customs Enforcement detained Serpas-Villalobos and her
children. The Department of Homeland Security ordered them to appear at removal
proceedings for entering the country without documentation. At their removal hearing,
they conceded removability, and, in July 2016, Serpas-Villalobos applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under CAT, listing her children as derivatives.
After holding a hearing, the IJ issued an oral ruling denying Serpas-Villalobos’s
application. The IJ found that Serpas-Villalobos had not demonstrated any of the
elements necessary to qualify as a refugee, nor had she shown that the government of El
Salvador was either unwilling or unable to protect her and her children. Finally, the IJ
found that she had not met the burdens necessary for withholding of removal and relief
under CAT. The Board affirmed.
Serpas-Villalobos petitions for our review.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-3264 Page 3
Where, as here, “the Board ‘adopted the view of the IJ and affirmed with
additional analysis, we review both opinions.’” Mateo-Mateo v. Garland, 124 F.4th 470, 474
(7th Cir. 2024) (quoting Osorio-Morales v. Garland, 72 F.4th 738, 741 (7th Cir. 2023)). We
review the Board’s and the IJ’s “legal conclusions de novo,” Borjas Cruz v. Garland, 96 F.4th
1000, 1004 (7th Cir. 2024), but we “uphold factual findings so long as they are supported
by substantial evidence,” Mateo-Mateo, 124 F.4th at 474. This is a deferential standard.
“[W]e reverse factual findings ‘only if the evidence compels a different result.’” Id.
(quoting Meraz-Saucedo v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 676, 684 (7th Cir. 2021)).
To be eligible for asylum under the INA, the applicant must be a “refugee.”
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). “A ‘refugee’ is defined in part as an individual ‘who is unable or
unwilling to return to’ a country of one's nationality due to ‘persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.’” Granados Arias v. Garland, 69 F.4th 454, 462
(7th Cir. 2023) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). We deny Serpas-Villalobos’s petition for
review because she has failed to show that any persecution she experienced was “on
account of … membership in a particular social group”—the “nexus” requirement.
Granados Arias, 69 F.4th at 462.
A particular social group “is defined by a characteristic that is either immutable or
is so fundamental to individual identity or conscience that a person ought not be required
to change it.” N.L.A. v. Holder, 744 F.3d 425, 437 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Cece v. Holder, 733
F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc)). The “fact of persecution” alone cannot define a
social group. Jonaitiene v. Holder, 660 F.3d 267, 271 (7th Cir. 2011). To show nexus, “the
petitioner must show that he or she is persecuted on account of membership in a
particular social group.” Dominguez-Pulido v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 837, 844–45 (7th Cir. 2016)
(citation modified)). “The protected trait does not have to be the only reason for the
persecution, but it ‘cannot play a minor role.’” W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957, 965 (7th
Cir. 2018) (quoting Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 44 (BIA 2017)). Finally, and key to
this case, “[c]ourts regularly decline to find nexus where the persecutors aim to recruit or
retaliate for refusal to join their criminal enterprise.” See de Paz-Peraza v. Bondi, 140 F.4th
390, 394 (7th Cir. 2025) (collecting cases).
Serpas-Villalobos advances three proposed social groups: (i) “Enemies of the MS-
13 Street Gang”; (ii) “People suspected by the 18th Street Gang to be working for the MS-
13 gang as an informant”; and (iii) “Juveniles recruited by the MS-13 gang who resist such
recruitment and their families.”

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-3264 Page 4
Whether or not these groups are cognizable, Serpas-Villalobos fails to demonstrate
the required “nexus” between any of these groups and the persecution she raises. We
agree with the IJ’s finding that “gang recruitment and harassment are the types of
generalized crimes that affect large swaths of society throughout El Salvador and do not
support a finding of persecution on account of particular protected ground.” ECF No. 15,
at 86 (citing Krishnapillai v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606, 620 (7th Cir. 2009); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26
I. & N. Dec. 227, 235 (BIA 2014)). We have previously emphasized this finding. See de Paz-
Peraza, 140 F.4th at 394; Bueso-Avila v. Holder, 663 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding no
nexus where evidence only showed that MS-13 “threatened and harmed [petitioner]
simply because he was a youth who refused to join their street gang”); see also INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (explaining that to demonstrate nexus, petitioner had to
show that “the guerrillas will persecute him because of that political opinion, rather than
because of his refusal to fight with them”). Serpas-Villalobos’s testimony of the family’s
interactions with MS-13 confirms that any perceived persecution they experienced
“relate[s] to the gang’s recruitment and retaliation goals,” rather than “on account of” the
particular social groups she advances. See de Paz-Peraza, 140 F.4th at 394. She testified that
the gang tried to recruit Jonathan and threatened to kill him and his family if he refused
to work for them. She also testified that Pantero threatened her because she had called
the police. Such generalized recruitment and threats are not sufficiently tied to the social
groups she raises. While Serpas-Villalobos testified that MS-13 specifically targets young
people because they face more lenient criminal penalties if arrested, the IJ and Board
found this insufficient to establish nexus, and “[h]owever ‘possible’ or ‘legitimate’
[Serpas-Villalobos]'s position, it is not ‘so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder’ could
disagree.” Id. at 394–95 (quoting Bueso-Avila, 663 F.3d at 938). That is, substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s and Board’s nexus determinations.
Because Serpas-Villalobos cannot demonstrate a nexus between any persecution
she may have experienced and a particular social group she may belong to, we need not
address the other elements of Serpas-Villalobos’s asylum claim. See de Paz-Peraza, 140
F.4th at 395. Moreover, to the extent Serpas-Villalobos’s claims for withholding of
removal and relief under CAT are not waived for failing to advance them before this
court, Smith v. Garland, 103 F.4th 1244, 1253 n.2 (7th Cir. 2024), those claims fail on the
merits. Because Serpas-Villalobos’s asylum claim fails, she cannot make out the higher
standards necessary for withholding of removal and relief under CAT. See Rivas-Jarquin
v. Bondi, 149 F.4th 944, 951 (7th Cir. 2025); see also de Paz-Peraza, 140 F.4th at 395.
For the reasons discussed, we DENY Serpas-Villalobos’s petition for review.

-- 4 of 4 --