The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued guidance for Immigration Judges (IJs) adjudicating asylum claims based on membership in a particular social group (PSG) defined by the respondent’s former status or position. Matter of O–A–R–G–, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 30 (BIA 2025). In this case, the respondent was an officer in the National Police of Colombia who participated in operations against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). During one operation, FARC members beat the respondent and other police officers with rifles. After this incident, the respondent received a threatening letter and phone call from the FARC. He reported the attack to his police command, but his command only offered him vacation time and no additional police protection while he was on or off duty. The respondent resigned from the National Police and fled Colombia for the United States, where he applied for asylum based on his PSG of “former police officers of Colombia.”  

The IJ found that FARC targeted the respondent due to his involvement in law enforcement operations when he was an active police officer, not because FARC sought to punish former Colombian police officers or had an animus toward them as a group. The IJ reasoned that because he resigned from the National Police, he would no longer be authorized to conduct official actions against FARC and therefore FARC would no longer target him for harm in the form of retribution for such conduct. Because the IJ found that the respondent failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and his membership in the PSG, the IJ denied the respondent’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ also held that the respondent did not establish eligibility for Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection, although the BIA did not indicate why the IJ denied this protection. 

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IJ that the respondent experienced harm based on his prior status as an active police officer and in retribution for his conduct performed in his official capacity. The BIA explained that because the respondent did not show that he suffered the harm on account of his status as a former police officer, he did not establish a nexus between the harm he experienced and his PSG composed of former police officers in Colombia. The BIA also concluded, without elaboration or analysis specific to the facts of the case, that the respondent had not met the standard for CAT protection. The BIA found that his reference to general country conditions, evidence of human rights issues, and the prevalence of crime in Colombia were insufficient to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he and his family will be tortured in Colombia by or with the acquiescence of the government. 

When formulating PSGs defined by former status or employment, practitioners should always explain precisely how the respondent’s current membership in the PSG is a main reason for their fear and the harm they experienced. For example, the respondent may have provided evidence that FARC targets all former National Police officers indiscriminately, even those who had not engaged in operations against them, and deems former police officers a threat to their continued efforts for control. Practitioners should cite circuit court precedent and demonstrate how the facts of their client’s case meet the specific standards for establishing nexus in their jurisdiction.

It is important to note that even if a persecutor had multiple motives for perpetuating the harm, nexus can still be established where the respondent’s former status is a central reason for the harm. Where possible, practitioners should consider bolstering arguments and evidence in support of a well-founded fear of future persecution to show the continued threat to members of a group because of their former status and despite the fact that they no longer actively hold that status. Practitioners should also thoroughly screen for and present any political opinion and imputed political opinion claims, because many cases involving PSGs based on former status or employment also include a political opinion component.