Court Rules Family Murders Count as Persecution in Landmark Asylum Case
The Seventh Circuit, led by a Notre Dame Law School professor, says threats and killings of relatives can establish direct persecution—even if the asylum seeker herself was never physically harmed.
WASHINGTON —In a major asylum ruling, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that years of lethal threats and violence against a petitioner’s relatives can constitute direct persecution of the petitioner, even if the petitioner herself was never physically harmed.
In Mejia-Hernandez v. Bondi, decided on July 17, a unanimous panel — Judge Kenneth Ripple (a Notre Dame Law School professor … Go Irish!) writing, joined by Judges David Hamilton and Jill Pryor — granted a Honduran woman’s petition for review and partially overturned a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The case has broad implications for family-based asylum claims and the evidentiary threshold for establishing persecution.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by:
The court concluded that the petitioner, Elizabeth Mejia-Hernandez, had suffered past persecution based on threats and violence against her immediate family, and that her fear of future harm was well founded. It remanded the case to the BIA for the limited purpose of determining whether the Honduran government was “unable or unwilling” to protect her from her persecutor, a man named Cesar, who had already murdered six of her relatives.
“Ms. Mejia herself did not participate in the original dispute; only her familial ties make her a target,” the court wrote, rejecting the government’s argument that the case stemmed from a private feud.
Court strengthens family-based asylum doctrine
The ruling creates a clarified legal standard: when a persecutor repeatedly murders or seriously harms members of a nuclear family and issues explicit death threats, the surviving family member may be considered directly persecuted—even in the absence of physical harm to them personally.
The panel found that the BIA had erred in dismissing Mejia’s experiences as indirect or insufficient. According to the record, her grandfather and five cousins were murdered by Cesar, who also threatened Mejia directly with messages like “you’re next.” The Seventh Circuit held that these were “credible, imminent, and serious” threats that elevated the pattern of violence to direct persecution.
Citing its 2014 precedent N.L.A. v. Holder, the court reaffirmed that violence against relatives can, under certain conditions, be experienced as persecution by the applicant herself.
The court also rejected Mejia’s challenge to the immigration court’s jurisdiction based on a defective Notice to Appear (NTA) that lacked time and place information. Following its 2019 decision in Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, the court held the omission was a waivable, non-jurisdictional error. Because Mejia failed to raise the issue at her initial hearing and had conceded removability, the court ruled the claim was forfeited.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
Persecution not “personal vendetta”
The court flatly rejected the BIA’s framing of the violence as a personal vendetta unrelated to a protected ground. Instead, the judges emphasized Mejia’s membership in her nuclear family as the central reason she was targeted, citing prior cases like W.G.A. v. Sessions and Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr, both of which recognize nuclear family as a cognizable social group under asylum law.
“Persecution does not become less real merely because the persecutor’s grievance originates elsewhere,” the court noted, pointing out that Cesar’s campaign of violence indiscriminately targeted the entire family, including uninvolved members like Mejia.
Next step: can the Honduran state protect her?
While the Seventh Circuit ruled that Mejia had suffered past persecution and established a well-founded fear of future harm, it left one key issue unresolved: whether the Honduran government is “unable or unwilling” to prevent the abuse. That question, the panel said, must be addressed first by the BIA, consistent with the Supreme Court’s instructions in INS v. Ventura.
If the BIA finds that state protection is lacking, Mejia will likely be entitled to asylum.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
Broader implications
The decision provides a doctrinal boost to family-based asylum claims, especially those arising from blood feuds or gang violence. It also signals that courts must assess threats in context — including the persecutor’s history of violence — rather than in isolation.
Legal experts say the ruling could influence other circuit courts confronting similar fact patterns and will likely be cited in future cases where applicants struggle to link family-targeted terror to legally cognizable persecution.
Mejia’s case now returns to the BIA for final resolution.
If you’ve made it this far, you care. Help us keep pressing the powerful and exposing what they’d rather you never see—subscribe or donate to keep Migrant Insider going.