Abandonment, Exhaustion, and Financial Motive: Second Circuit Reaffirms Nexus Requirements in Gang-Related Asylum Claims

Introduction

In Chucuri-Carguachi v. Bondi (2d Cir. Nov. 14, 2025), a non-precedential summary order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision upholding an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. The petitioners—a family from Ecuador—alleged gang-related harm arising from extortion and threats connected to the lead petitioner’s small business.

Although the order does not create new law, it underscores several recurring and outcome-determinative doctrines in immigration appeals: (1) strict adherence to appellate briefing requirements and the risk of abandonment of issues not adequately argued; (2) mandatory, government-invoked exhaustion of issues not presented to the agency; and (3) the central importance of proving persecutor motive (nexus) in gang-related claims, where financial or opportunistic motives generally do not satisfy the statutory requirement that a protected ground be “one central reason” for the harm.

The panel—Judges Dennis Jacobs, Pierre N. Leval, and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.—reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and concluded that petitioners failed to preserve or substantiate challenges to dispositive grounds for denial. The court also cautioned counsel about briefing deficiencies under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.

Summary of the Opinion

The Second Circuit denied the petition for review on three principal grounds:

• Abandonment of the critical “nexus” challenge: Petitioners failed to meaningfully argue that a protected ground was “one central reason” for the alleged persecution, providing only boilerplate standards and generalized references to gang violence without record-based analysis of persecutor motive.
• Abandonment of CAT: Petitioners did not address the BIA’s denial of CAT relief in their brief.
• Failure to exhaust: Petitioners did not raise claims of IJ bias, speculation, due process violations, or humanitarian asylum before the BIA; because the Government invoked issue-exhaustion, those issues could not be heard.

The court added that even if the nexus issue had been preserved, substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that the harm arose from gangs’ financial objectives rather than a protected ground. The panel reiterated that gang violence and general crime conditions in Ecuador, standing alone, do not establish persecution “on account of” a protected ground. All pending motions and applications were denied and stays vacated.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Department of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005): The court reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, a standard approach ensuring focus on the grounds actually embraced by the BIA.
• Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B): Reaffirmed the bifurcated standard—substantial evidence for factual findings and de novo review for legal questions and mixed questions—and the statutory deference owed to the agency’s fact-finding.
• Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023): Issues not adequately argued are abandoned. The panel applied this to both the nexus issue (asylum/withholding) and CAT.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103, 109–14 (2d Cir. 2022): The “one central reason” standard governs both asylum and withholding in the Second Circuit. The court invoked Quituizaca to confirm the dispositive nexus framework.
• Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 304 (2021): Cited by petitioners to argue family-based social group, but the court noted that a passing reference to L-E-A- did not preserve a nexus challenge, particularly where the agency applied the correct standard and petitioners did not develop argument or cite evidence of motive.
• Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569, 591 n.25 (2d Cir. 2021): Confirmed that nexus determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence.
• Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 196–97 (2d Cir. 2014): Nexus turns on the persecutor’s motive; courts look for evidence—direct or circumstantial—of why the persecutor acted.
• INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992): The applicant bears the burden to produce some evidence of motive; absence of such evidence defeats nexus.
• Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir. 1999): Harm arising from “general crime conditions” is not persecution on account of a protected ground—a principle central to gang-extortion claims.
• Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005): The persecutor’s motive must arise from a protected characteristic of the applicant.
• Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73 (2d Cir. 2007): Distinguishes harm due to wealth or opportunism (“that’s where the money is”) from harm “because of” class or protected status—again undermining nexus in extortion-driven cases.
• Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157–58 (2d Cir. 2008): A petitioner’s failure to adduce evidence can itself constitute substantial evidence supporting the agency’s decision.
• Ud Din v. Garland, 72 F.4th 411, 419–20 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2023); Vera Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114, 124 (2d Cir. 2024): Issue exhaustion is mandatory when the Government invokes it, and arguments must closely match those presented to the BIA.
• Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28: The court cautioned counsel that the brief’s lack of record citations and conclusory treatment of dispositive issues risk dismissal or discipline in future cases.

Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review and Scope: Applying Xue Hong Yang, the court focused on the IJ’s rationale as adopted or modified by the BIA. Factual findings were reviewed for substantial evidence; legal questions de novo, with deference per § 1252(b)(4)(B).
2. Abandonment of Nexus and CAT: Under Debique, issues not adequately briefed are abandoned. Petitioners’ failure to develop the nexus argument and total omission of CAT meant those issues could not sustain reversal.
3. Mandatory Issue Exhaustion: Petitioners’ claims of IJ bias/speculation, due process violations, and humanitarian asylum were not presented to the BIA. Because the Government invoked exhaustion, the court declined to consider those unpreserved theories (Ud Din; Vera Punin).
4. Alternative Holding on Nexus (Substantial Evidence): Even if preserved, the nexus challenge would fail. The record showed gangs in Ecuador engage in violence and extortion, but the evidence indicated a financial/enterprise motive—desire for the petitioner’s business and property to facilitate illicit activities—not hostility tied to a protected ground. Under Paloka, Elias-Zacarias, Melgar de Torres, Ucelo-Gomez, and Yueqing Zhang, such evidence does not meet the “one central reason” standard for asylum and withholding (Quituizaca).
5. Practical Effect: With no preserved or viable nexus argument and CAT abandoned, the petition necessarily failed. The panel concluded by denying the petition, denying pending motions, and vacating stays.

Impact

Although this is a summary order without precedential effect, it carries clear guidance for litigants and practitioners in the Second Circuit:

• Briefing discipline is critical. A failure to develop dispositive issues—with record citations and targeted legal analysis—risks abandonment. Courts will not salvage skeletal arguments with boilerplate recitations of standards.
• Preserve issues at every stage. Arguments not advanced to the BIA—such as claims of IJ bias, due process violations, or requests for humanitarian asylum—are typically unreviewable when the Government presses exhaustion.
• Nexus in gang cases remains the fulcrum. Extortion or threats aimed at obtaining money, property, or using business assets for criminal enterprise ordinarily reflect economic opportunism, not persecution “on account of” a protected ground. Applicants must marshal record evidence directly or circumstantially tying harm to a protected characteristic (e.g., explicit references to kinship, political opinion, or a cognizable social group).
• Withholding’s standard on motive matches asylum in the Second Circuit. Quituizaca’s application of the “one central reason” standard to withholding continues to shape outcomes where the protected-ground rationale is not central to the harm.
• CAT must be argued distinctly. Because CAT hinges on a different inquiry—likelihood of torture with governmental involvement or acquiescence—omitting it in appellate briefing forfeits a potentially viable, independent avenue of protection.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Protected Grounds: Asylum and withholding protect individuals targeted on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group (PSG).
• Particular Social Group (PSG): A legally recognized grouping requiring immutability, particularity, and social distinction. “Family” can qualify, but applicants still must prove nexus—that the persecutor targeted them because of that PSG. The court did not resolve PSG validity here; it held there was no nexus to the asserted group (“small business owners seeking to protect their businesses and their families”).
• Nexus (“One Central Reason”): The applicant must show that a protected ground was one central reason for the harm—more than incidental or tangential. If the primary motive is financial gain or general criminality, nexus typically fails.
• Substantial Evidence Review: A deferential standard. The court upholds agency fact-finding unless the record compels a contrary conclusion.
• Abandonment vs. Exhaustion: Abandonment occurs when a party fails to adequately brief an issue on appeal. Exhaustion concerns whether an issue was first presented to the agency; if not, and the Government invokes exhaustion, the court generally will not consider it.
• CAT Relief: Requires showing it is more likely than not the applicant will be tortured by, or with the consent/acquiescence of, a public official. It does not require a protected ground. Nonetheless, it must be distinctly argued and supported.
• Humanitarian Asylum: Available in limited circumstances where past persecution is established but a well-founded fear of future persecution cannot be shown, based on compelling reasons or risk of other serious harm. It must be raised before the agency and preserved on appeal.

Conclusion

Chucuri-Carguachi v. Bondi reinforces three core points in immigration appeals: (1) appellate courts will deem dispositive issues abandoned if not meaningfully argued; (2) issue exhaustion is mandatory when invoked by the Government; and (3) in gang-related claims, evidence of financial or opportunistic motives will not satisfy the protected-ground nexus requirement for asylum or withholding. Even apart from abandonment, the panel concluded that the record supported the BIA’s no-nexus determination under the substantial evidence standard.

For practitioners, the decision serves as a cautionary exemplar: rigorously develop the nexus theory with record citations, preserve all claims before the BIA (including humanitarian asylum and due process objections), and distinctly brief CAT. While not precedential, this order reflects the Second Circuit’s consistent, stringent application of briefing rules and motive doctrines—both of which remain decisive in many gang-based protection claims.