“One Central Reason” Confirmed as the Nexus Standard for Both Asylum and Withholding-of-Removal in the Eleventh Circuit

Commentary on Carlos Cordova-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General, 20-11123 (11th Cir. May 13 2025)

1. Introduction

In Carlos Cordova-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General, the Eleventh Circuit addressed whether a Salvadoran petitioner, threatened by MS-13 gang members for preventing the gang’s recruitment of his stepchildren, qualified for asylum or withholding of removal. Beyond the specific facts, the panel used the case to solidify two doctrinal points:

First, both asylum and withholding applicants within the Eleventh Circuit must prove that a protected ground is “one central reason” for their persecution — rejecting the more lenient “a reason” test urged by the petitioner.
Second, the court reiterated the strict exhaustion requirement; applicants must raise every legal theory before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or forfeit it in court.

The parties were:

Petitioner: Carlos Alberto Cordova-Garcia – Salvadoran national.
Respondent: U.S. Attorney General, representing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The court denied the petition for review, allowing the removal order to stand.
On the asylum claim: substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that MS-13 targeted Cordova-Garcia for opposing their recruitment efforts, not because of his membership in his nuclear family.
On withholding of removal: the panel held that (i) petitioner failed to exhaust his argument that a lesser nexus standard should apply, and (ii) regardless, Eleventh Circuit precedent requires the “one central reason” test for withholding.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2021)
– Established that where gangs target a family “only as a means to an end,” nexus fails. The panel treated Sanchez-Castro as controlling and factually analogous.
Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019)
– Demonstrated a circumstance where family membership was central to persecution. The court contrasted Perez-Sanchez to show why Cordova-Garcia’s case did not meet the nexus test.
Ruiz, Sepulveda, Rodriguez
– Cited for basic persecution/nexus principles and family-related PSG analysis.
Kazemzadeh & Ade femi
– Provided the standards of review: de novo for law, substantial evidence for fact.
Indrawati, Amaya-Artunduaga, Kemokai, and SCOTUS case Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411 (2023)
– Confirmed that exhaustion, though a claim-processing rule post-Santos-Zacaria, remains enforceable when the Government invokes it. The panel used these cases to bar petitioner’s new “a reason” argument.
Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001)
– Articulated the Eleventh Circuit’s prior-panel-precedent rule, compelling adherence to Sanchez-Castro.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Nexus for Asylum

To succeed, an asylum applicant must show that persecution was “on account of” a protected ground, and that the ground was “one central reason” (8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
The IJ, affirmed by the BIA, found the gang’s motivation purely instrumental:

“The gang would have targeted anyone who interfered with its efforts to recruit children.”

The Eleventh Circuit held that this finding was backed by substantial evidence, thereby satisfying the deferential review standard. Significantly, the court avoided ruling on whether family membership is a cognizable social group; it assumed cognizability, then resolved the case purely on nexus — a classic example of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance applied to immigration law.

3.2.2 Nexus for Withholding of Removal

Withholding ordinarily carries a higher burden of proof (more-likely-than-not standard), but shares the same protected-ground nexus element. Petitioner argued the statute, 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)(A), lacks the phrase “one central reason,” so only “a reason” should suffice. The panel declined to reach the merits because the argument was not raised before the BIA, thus unexhausted under §1252(d)(1).

In dicta, however, the court stated that even if exhausted, Sanchez-Castro already held the “one central reason” standard applies to withholding claims, and the prior-panel-precedent rule would foreclose petitioner’s position unless overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.

3.2.3 Exhaustion & Claim-Processing Rules

Post-Santos-Zacaria, exhaustion is non-jurisdictional but still mandatory when the Government insists upon it. DHS properly invoked exhaustion, and the panel enforced it — illustrating how the doctrine operates after Santos-Zacaria.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

Solidification of the “One Central Reason” test for Withholding. Litigants within the Eleventh Circuit can no longer argue that withholding carries a lighter nexus burden.
Higher evidentiary bar for family-based PSG claims. Applicants must supply evidence that the persecutor’s motive is not just related to, but centrally rooted in, their familial identity — mere interference with gang objectives will not suffice.
Strategic focus on exhaustion. Counsel will have to present alternative statutory-interpretation arguments (e.g., the “a reason” theory) to the IJ/BIA or risk forfeiture.
Continued inter-circuit tension. Some circuits have hinted at different causation language for withholding; the Eleventh Circuit’s explicit alignment of the standards may invite eventual Supreme Court review to resolve any split.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group (PSG): A collection of people sharing a characteristic that is immutable or fundamental, socially distinct, and defined with particularity (e.g., a nuclear family). Recognition of a PSG is prerequisite, but alone is insufficient without nexus.
Nexus – “One Central Reason” Test: The protected ground must be an essential, non-incidental motive for the persecutor. Think of it as the “but-for” heart of the aggression, not a side issue.
Asylum vs. Withholding of Removal: Asylum is discretionary and offers a path to permanent status; withholding is mandatory if eligibility is proven but offers only non-deportation to the specific persecuting country, without ancillary benefits.
Substantial Evidence Review: The court must defer to agency fact-finding unless the record compels the opposite conclusion — a deliberately high bar.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The requirement that all claims/arguments be presented to the BIA before seeking court review, to give the agency the first chance to correct errors.
Prior-Panel-Precedent Rule: In the Eleventh Circuit, a published panel decision binds later panels until overturned en banc or by the Supreme Court.

5. Conclusion

Cordova-Garcia is significant less for its outcome than for its crystallization of doctrinal rules: (1) “One central reason” governs nexus in both asylum and withholding analyses within the Eleventh Circuit; (2) family-based claims require clear evidence that familial identity, not opportunistic criminal aims, motivates persecution; and (3) issue exhaustion remains a formidable procedural hurdle notwithstanding its non-jurisdictional label.

Going forward, practitioners representing Central American clients facing gang violence must craft records that directly tie threats to a statutorily protected ground — especially familial status — and must litigate every viable statutory interpretation before the BIA. Absent such precision, Cordova-Garcia suggests that petitions for review will continue to meet a cold reception in the Eleventh Circuit.

Prepared by: [Your Name], Legal Commentator | Date: [Insert Date]

“One Central Reason” Confirmed as the Nexus Standard for Both Asylum and Withholding-of-Removal in the Eleventh Circuit – Commentary on Carlos Cordova-Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General (2025)