Introduction

This Second Circuit summary order denies a petition for review brought by Maritza Yasmin Arias-Arevalo, a Salvadoran national, from a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The decision addresses two recurring themes in contemporary removal litigation: (1) whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) that omits the date and time of the initial hearing deprives the immigration court of jurisdiction; and (2) the rigorous proof of “nexus” required to connect gang-related harms to a protected ground under asylum and withholding statutes.

Arias-Arevalo argued that her NTA’s omission of time and place invalidated the immigration court’s jurisdiction. Substantively, she claimed persecution on account of religion, political opinion (including anti-gang and feminist beliefs), gender, membership in particular social groups, and family relationship. The court rejected the jurisdictional attack as waived and held that the record lacked the requisite nexus between the gang’s conduct—largely characterized as extortionary or retaliatory over payment demands—and any protected ground. Several theories (gender and family relationship) were also deemed unexhausted.

Although this ruling is a non-precedential summary order, it reinforces existing Second Circuit law on NTA defects as waivable claim-processing rules and on the demanding nexus standard for gang-based claims.

Summary of the Opinion

• Jurisdiction: The court held that the omission of date and time in the NTA did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction where a subsequent hearing notice issued, and in any event the time/place requirement is a non-jurisdictional, waivable claim-processing rule. Because Arias-Arevalo conceded removability and failed to timely raise the deficiency before the IJ or the BIA, the argument was waived.
• Asylum/Withholding: The petition failed on “nexus.” The court agreed with the agency that the gang targeted her for general criminal reasons—free food, retaliation for demanding payment—rather than because of her religion or political opinions. Claims based on gender and family relationship were not exhausted before the agency and could not be entertained.
• Standards of Review: Factual findings were reviewed for substantial evidence; legal questions, including application of law to fact, de novo. The court reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA.
• Disposition: Petition for review denied; all pending motions and applications denied; stays vacated. The CAT claim was waived and not before the court.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Castellanos-Ventura v. Garland, 118 F.4th 250 (2d Cir. 2024): Confirms that the court reviews the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, a scope-of-review principle ensuring that appellate analysis tracks what the BIA actually decided.
• Ojo v. Garland, 25 F.4th 152 (2d Cir. 2022) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B): Frame the standard of review: factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise; legal questions are reviewed de novo.
• Cupete v. Garland, 29 F.4th 53 (2d Cir. 2022): In the wake of Pereira and Niz-Chavez, Cupete recognizes that an NTA lacking time/place does not trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal, yet it does not strip jurisdiction where a proper hearing notice follows. The panel leans on Cupete to reject the jurisdictional attack here.
• Penaranda Arevalo v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 325, 336–37 (2d Cir. 2025): A key, recent Second Circuit decision categorizing the time/place requirement as a non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture. The court applies this to hold that the petitioner’s failure to timely object—and her concession of removability—waives the NTA defect argument.
• Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103, 109–14 (2d Cir. 2022): Establishes that the “one central reason” nexus standard applies to both asylum and withholding of removal. This heightened consistency undercuts attempts to salvage withholding where asylum fails on nexus.
• Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010) and Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 196–97 (2d Cir. 2014): Emphasize the need for a “sufficiently strong nexus” based on the persecutor’s motive; for PSG claims, the applicant must show both cognizability of the group and nexus.
• INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992): The Supreme Court demands some direct or circumstantial evidence of persecutors’ motives; refusal to assist or general criminal confrontation does not automatically equal political persecution. The court relies on this to dismiss the political opinion and religion theories here.
• Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190, 201 (2d Cir. 2021): Opposition to gangs—even if it draws hostile reactions—does not inherently constitute political opinion. Applied here to reject both actual and imputed political opinion theories based on anti-gang or “feminist beliefs” absent evidence that the gang perceived and targeted those beliefs.
• Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157–58 (2d Cir. 2008): When the petitioner bears the burden, a failure to adduce evidence may itself constitute “substantial evidence” supporting the agency’s determination. The court invokes this principle in upholding the agency’s nexus findings.
• Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114, 124 (2d Cir. 2024) and Ud Din v. Garland, 72 F.4th 411, 419–20 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2023): Issue exhaustion is mandatory when raised by the Government. These cases foreclose consideration of the petitioner’s gender-based and family-relationship-based claims that were not previously presented to the IJ or BIA.

Legal Reasoning

1) Agency Jurisdiction and NTA Defects

The court rejects the jurisdictional challenge premised on an NTA lacking the date and time of the hearing. Two steps anchor this result:

• Claim-Processing, Not Jurisdictional: Relying on Penaranda Arevalo (2025), the time/place requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) is a claim-processing rule. It does not limit the immigration court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and can be waived or forfeited.
• Waiver/Forfeiture Applied: Arias-Arevalo conceded removability and did not timely object to the NTA deficiency before the IJ or the BIA. That failure is dispositive; the argument is waived. Cupete underscores that, in any event, a subsequent proper hearing notice cures the practical defect for jurisdictional purposes.

2) Asylum and Withholding: The Nexus Requirement

The dispositive issue is nexus—i.e., whether a protected ground was “one central reason” for the persecution. Under Quituizaca, the same standard applies to both asylum and withholding, so a nexus failure defeats both claims.

• Religion: Although the petitioner was an active church member and some harassment occurred in or near the church, the record reflected that gang members targeted her to compel free food from her stand and to retaliate for demanding payment. Mere presence at church or the fact that the gang located her there does not evince religious animus. Under Elias-Zacarias, the applicant must provide some evidence of the persecutors’ motive; none here indicated that her religion was a central reason for the harm.
• Political Opinion (including anti-gang and “feminist beliefs”): Zelaya-Moreno establishes that opposition to gangs is not political opinion per se. The record lacked evidence that the gang attributed a political meaning to her insistence on payment or perceived “feminist beliefs,” as opposed to treating her as a target for extortion. Elias-Zacarias reinforces that the persecution must be “because of” political opinion, not because the petitioner refused to acquiesce to criminal demands. The court thus sustains the agency’s no-nexus finding.
• Unexhausted Theories (Gender and Family Relationship): The court declines to consider these theories because they were not properly raised before the IJ or the BIA. Under Punin and Ud Din, issue exhaustion is mandatory when the Government invokes it, as here.

Given the absence of a protected-ground nexus and the presence of general criminal motives (free consumption, punishment for demanding payment), the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Under Jian Hui Shao, the petitioner’s failure to present evidence of motive itself bolsters the agency’s determination.

Impact and Practical Implications

1) NTA Time/Place Defects in the Second Circuit

• Do not expect jurisdictional dismissal: After Penaranda Arevalo, NTA time/place defects are claim-processing rules; they do not deprive IJs of jurisdiction. Arguments to terminate proceedings on “jurisdictional” grounds will generally fail if the issue was not preserved.
• Preservation is critical: Practitioners must raise NTA defects promptly at the IJ level (e.g., via a motion to terminate) and maintain the objection before the BIA or risk waiver/forfeiture.
• Separate contexts, separate consequences: Cupete confirms that while an incomplete NTA cannot trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal, that does not translate into a jurisdictional defect. Counsel must carefully distinguish stop-time arguments from termination arguments.

2) Gang-Based Asylum and Withholding Claims

• Evidence of motive is indispensable: Applicants must marshal direct or circumstantial proof that the persecutor targeted them because of a protected ground—not merely due to general criminality or extortion. Statements by persecutors referencing religion, political views, or group characteristics can be powerful; their absence proves fatal in cases like this.
• Opposition to gangs is not automatically “political opinion”: Zelaya-Moreno’s principle remains a significant obstacle. To prevail, applicants need evidence showing that persecutors imputed a political stance to the applicant and targeted them for that reason.
• Location does not equal motive: The fact that harm occurs at or near a place of worship does not itself establish religious persecution. The inquiry focuses on the persecutor’s motive, not the venue.
• Withholding offers no backstop on nexus: Quituizaca’s extension of the “one central reason” standard to withholding of removal means that applicants cannot avoid a nexus failure by pivoting from asylum to withholding.
• Exhaustion rigor: The Second Circuit continues to enforce issue exhaustion. All proposed “particular social groups” (e.g., gender-based, family-based) and all theories (religion, political opinion) must be presented to the IJ and then to the BIA to preserve judicial review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Notice to Appear (NTA): The charging document that initiates removal proceedings. By statute it should list, among other things, the date and time of the initial hearing. In the Second Circuit, omission of date/time is a non-jurisdictional defect that can be waived.
• Claim-Processing Rule vs. Jurisdiction: A claim-processing rule regulates how claims proceed and can be waived or forfeited if not timely raised. A jurisdictional rule concerns the adjudicator’s power to hear the case and cannot be waived. Here, the NTA’s time/place requirement is claim-processing.
• Exhaustion: The requirement to present issues to the agency (IJ, then BIA) before seeking judicial review. If the Government invokes exhaustion, the court will not consider arguments not previously raised to the agency.
• Asylum/Withholding “Nexus”: The harm must be “because of” a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, particular social group). Under Second Circuit law, a protected ground must be “one central reason” for both asylum and withholding.
• Political Opinion (Actual or Imputed): The applicant’s own political views (actual) or beliefs the persecutor mistakenly attributes to the applicant (imputed). Evidence must show the persecutor targeted the applicant on that basis.
• Particular Social Group (PSG): A group defined by immutable characteristics, particularity, and social distinction in the relevant society. Applicants must prove both that the group is legally cognizable and that persecution is “because of” membership in that group.
• Substantial Evidence Review: Highly deferential to the agency. The court upholds factual findings unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.
• Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right (e.g., conceding removability). Forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a right. Both can bar consideration of claim-processing objections to an NTA.

Conclusion

Arias-Arevalo v. Bondi reinforces two settled propositions in the Second Circuit. First, defects in an NTA’s time/place specification are non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rules that must be timely asserted or are waived; a subsequent hearing notice and a concession of removability foreclose late-stage jurisdictional attacks. Second, gang-related harms framed as extortion or retaliation over commercial disputes do not satisfy the asylum/withholding nexus requirement absent evidence that a protected ground—religion, political opinion, PSG membership—was one central reason for the persecution. Additionally, strict enforcement of issue exhaustion precludes judicial review of theories not presented to the IJ and the BIA.

Although this is a non-precedential summary order, it cogently applies recent and controlling Second Circuit authority—especially Penaranda Arevalo on NTA defects and Quituizaca on nexus—to deny relief. The decision’s practical message to practitioners is clear: preserve NTA challenges early; articulate and exhaust every protected-ground theory with specificity; and marshal concrete evidence of persecutors’ motives. Without that, gang-based claims will continue to founder on nexus.