Thus, for purposes of Jimenez's petition for review, we must treat the proposed social group as cognizable. See R.R.D. v. Holder , 746 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Cece v. Holder , 733 F.3d 662, 677 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc). We turn now to Jimenez's argument that the Board “erred as a matter of law” by failing to evaluate her argument that the IJ improperly depended on unreliable notes from the credible-fear interview in making an adverse credibility finding.

Based on Petitioner’s experience, we hold that the ongoing threats to his life are "menacing and credible" enough to "imply a risk of future persecution." R.R.D. v. Holder , 746 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 2014) (accepting the applicant’s testimony that his persecutors were still looking for him and threatening him). The IJ’s and the BIA’s failure to consider the risk presented by these threats in light of Petitioner’s experience doomed their future persecution analysis.

Based on Sumaila's experience, we hold that the ongoing threats to his life are "menacing and credible" enough to "imply a risk of future persecution." R.R.D. v. Holder, 746 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 2014) (accepting the applicant's testimony that his persecutors were still looking for him and threatening him). The IJ's and the BIA's failure to consider the risk presented by these threats in light of Sumaila's experience doomed their future persecution analysis.

Threats to harm other members of the group can certainly be relevant, but they are not essential to such an asylum claim. See W.G.A. , 900 F.3d at 967 (finding it improper for immigration judge to deny asylum based on lack of harm to other family members); R.R.D. v. Holder , 746 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2014) (asylum statute "does not require that all members of that category suffer the same fate"). In sum, Gonzalez Ruano’s credible testimony established that he was persecuted by members of the CJNG and that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to help him.

Plus, as the government correctly acknowledged in oral argument, it was improper for the immigration judge to rely on a lack of harm to other family members, without more, to find that W.G.A. was not targeted on account of his kinship ties. See R.R.D. v. Holder , 746 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir.2014) (reasoning that statute "does not require that all members of" the protected group "suffer the same fate"); see also Cordova v. Holder , 759 F.3d 332, 339 (4th Cir.2014) (refusing to uphold Board’s reasoning that petitioner could not have been targeted on account of his kinship ties because other family members were not targeted for same reason).The immigration judge also relied on W.G.A.’s testimony that the gang has a personal vendetta against him.

We also assume, without deciding, that Realegeno advanced a cognizable particular social group, namely, that of former police officers. See, e.g., R.R.D. v. Holder, 746 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 2014) (explaining that alien advanced a viable particular social group because "[b]eing a former agent is an immutable characteristic; nothing R.R.D. can do will erase his employment history"). We nonetheless hold that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief in this case because, as the Board explained, Realegeno failed to satisfy his burden of proof regarding nexus.