Introduction

In Aguilar-Morales v. Bondi, the Second Circuit denied a petition for review by three Salvadoran nationals—Melvin A. Aguilar-Morales, Alicia Flores de Aguilar, and their son—challenging the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. The case centers on two key legal issues: (1) whether a defective Notice to Appear (NTA) that omitted hearing information deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction or otherwise warranted termination, and (2) whether threats and extortion by gang members, aimed at locating and recruiting a family member, satisfy the statutory nexus requirement for asylum and withholding based on family membership or imputed political opinion.

The Court held that the NTA challenge was unexhausted and in any event untenable in light of Second Circuit and BIA precedent treating time-and-place omissions as waivable claim-processing defects. On the merits of the protection claims, the Court concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the necessary nexus between a protected ground—family membership or imputed political opinion—and the harm feared, where the gang’s actions were undertaken as a means to locate and recruit a nephew.

Notably, the Court also deemed the CAT claim abandoned for failure to brief it, and cautioned counsel regarding Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 deficiencies, signaling the importance of rigorous appellate practice in immigration cases.

Summary of the Opinion

• NTA challenge rejected as unexhausted and meritless: The petitioners did not raise before the IJ or BIA the argument that an NTA lacking time-and-place did not vest jurisdiction. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) and Ud Din v. Garland (72 F.4th 411), failure to exhaust is mandatory when properly invoked by the government. Even if reached, the challenge fails: only Flores de Aguilar’s NTA omitted hearing information, which was later supplied by a hearing notice (curing any concern under Chery v. Garland, 16 F.4th 980); and any claim-processing defect was waived by not objecting before the close of pleadings (Penaranda Arevalo v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 325; In re Fernandes, 28 I. & N. Dec. 605).
• Asylum and withholding denied for lack of nexus: Applying the “one central reason” standard to both forms of relief (Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103), the Court held substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that gang threats and extortion were aimed at locating Flores de Aguilar’s nephew—i.e., a means to an end—rather than motivated by animus toward the petitioners’ family status (Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752).
• Imputed political opinion claim fails: The record lacked evidence that the gang imputed to the petitioners an anti-gang political opinion or perceived them as political actors (Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190).
• Unwilling-or-unable prong and CAT not reached: Because nexus was dispositive, the Court did not reach whether Salvadoran authorities were unwilling or unable to protect (INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24). The CAT claim was abandoned because it was not argued on appeal (Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676).
• Appellate practice admonition: The Court noted noncompliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 (missing record citations and pin cites; conclusory briefing), cautioning that future deficiencies may result in dismissal and possible disciplinary consequences.

Analysis

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Exhaustion (8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)): You must first raise your arguments with the IJ and the BIA before asking the Court of Appeals to review them. If you don’t, the court generally cannot consider them.
• Claim-processing rules vs. jurisdiction: A jurisdictional rule limits a court’s power and cannot be waived. A claim-processing rule regulates procedure and can be waived if not timely invoked. In the Second Circuit, time/place defects in NTAs are claim-processing, not jurisdictional.
• Close of pleadings: The point in immigration proceedings—typically during master calendar hearings—when charges are conceded/contested and applications identified. Objections to claim-processing defects must be raised by then.
• Nexus and “one central reason”: To win asylum or withholding, the protected ground (e.g., family membership, political opinion) must be one central reason for the harm. If the harm is for a different main reason (like finding someone else), nexus fails.
• Particular Social Group (PSG) — family: Family is often a cognizable PSG. But recognition of the group is not enough; you must still prove the persecutor targeted you because of that family relationship.
• Imputed political opinion: Even if you don’t hold a political opinion, if the persecutor thinks you do and harms you because of it, that can satisfy the political-opinion ground. Evidence must show the persecutor’s perception was political, not just criminal or personal.
• Substantial evidence review: The court defers to the agency’s factual findings unless no reasonable adjudicator could agree with them. It is a highly deferential standard.
• “Unable or unwilling to protect”: For persecution by non-state actors (like gangs), you must show that your home government cannot or will not protect you. The Court did not reach this here because nexus failed first.
• Abandonment on appeal: If you don’t make developed legal and factual arguments for a claim in your brief, the court treats the claim as abandoned.

Practice Pointers

• Preserve NTA objections early: If an NTA lacks time/place, object on the record before the close of pleadings. Don’t rely on jurisdictional theories; frame it under claim-processing and timeliness doctrines.
• Develop evidence of persecutor motive: Gather statements, threats, or patterns indicating the persecutor targeted the family as a family, not merely to reach someone else. Consider expert testimony and country reports documenting family-based targeting.
• Bolster imputed political opinion claims: Document how your actions were perceived as political (e.g., public reporting of gang activity, collaboration with anti-gang political actors, threats referencing political labels).
• Address all elements and all relief: Brief asylum, withholding, and CAT distinctly. Don’t assume success on one moots the others; failure to brief CAT risks abandonment.
• Comply with FRAP 28 rigorously: Include record citations and pin cites; avoid conclusory arguments. Anticipate and address the BIA’s specific reasoning, as the court reviews the IJ’s decision only as modified/supplemented by the BIA.

Conclusion

Aguilar-Morales v. Bondi, although a nonprecedential summary order, provides a clear reaffirmation of two pivotal principles in Second Circuit immigration jurisprudence. First, NTA time-and-place defects are waivable claim-processing rules requiring timely objection before the close of pleadings; a subsequent hearing notice cures any jurisdictional concern (Chery; Penaranda Arevalo; In re Fernandes). Second, the nexus requirement remains stringent: targeting a family as a means to locate or influence another individual does not ordinarily establish persecution “on account of” family membership, and imputed political opinion requires evidence that the persecutor actually perceived a political stance (Garcia-Aranda; Zelaya-Moreno; Quituizaca).

The case also illustrates the court’s unwillingness to reach non-dispositive issues (Bagamasbad), its strict enforcement of abandonment rules (Debique), and its expectations for precise, well-supported appellate briefing. For practitioners, the message is direct: preserve procedural objections early, build a robust record of persecutor motive, distinctly brief all forms of relief, and comply meticulously with appellate rules. Doing so will be essential to overcome the deferential substantial-evidence standard and the tightened causation requirements governing protection claims in the gang-violence context.