Clarifying the Nexus Requirement and Waiver Doctrine in Asylum & CAT Claims:
A Comprehensive Commentary on Acero-Angamarca v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025)

Introduction

On 25 March 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order in Acero-Angamarca v. Bondi, No. 23-7178, denying a petition for review filed by an Ecuadorian family seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Although the decision, designated as a “Summary Order,” lacks formal precedential status under Local Rule 32.1.1, it nonetheless provides an instructive synthesis of two core doctrines that frequently determine the fate of protection claims:

1. The “nexus” requirement—the evidentiary link between the harm suffered (or feared) and a protected ground; and
2. The waiver/abandonment doctrine on petition for review—the rule that issues not briefed are forfeited.

The petitioners, led by Gladys Beatriz Muñoz-Quintuna, alleged severe domestic abuse by a former partner, asserting persecution on account of two proposed “particular social groups”: (1) Ecuadorian women, and (2) Ecuadorian women unable to leave domestic relationships. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and the Second Circuit now upholds those determinations.

Summary of the Judgment

• Asylum & Withholding: The court agreed with the BIA that petitioners failed to establish that the former partner’s abuse was “at least one central reason” tied to a protected ground. The harm arose from “private and personal disputes,” alcohol abuse, and the abuser’s desire to control the relationship—factors divorced from the protected social-group characteristics.
• CAT: The court deemed the CAT claim abandoned because petitioners challenged only the “government acquiescence” prong but not the threshold finding that torture was not “more likely than not.” Under Second Circuit precedent (Debique v. Garland), such partial briefing waives review.
• Outcome: Petition for review DENIED; all stays vacated; no remand ordered.

Analysis

Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) – Reinforces that a social-group claim requires both a cognizable group and a nexus. The BIA assumed cognizability but found no nexus, invoking Paloka.
• Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) – Limits appellate review to the BIA’s stated grounds. The court refused to revisit cognizability because the BIA rested on nexus alone.
• Matter of Pierre, 15 I.&N. Dec. 461 (BIA 1975) – Prototype for cases where domestic violence is deemed personal, not persecutory. The court analogized Muñoz-Quintuna’s situation to Pierre’s, concluding the abuser acted for personal reasons.
• INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) – Requires “some evidence” of persecutor motive tied to a protected ground; the record here did not compel such a finding.
• Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023) – Provides that issues not adequately argued are abandoned; dictated disposition of the CAT claim.

Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review: The court applied substantial evidence review to factual findings (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)) and de novo review to legal conclusions, consistent with long-standing circuit practice.
2. Nexus Analysis:
   • The IJ & BIA assumed the groups were cognizable, bypassing that debate.
   • They focused on motive and found no “central reason” linking abuse to group membership.
   • The record showed:
     • Violence followed intra-relationship disputes (money, fidelity, gang affiliation).
     • Alcohol-fueled episodes—an independent motive.
     • Retaliation for reconciling with husband—personal jealousy.
   • Therefore, no persecutory intent “on account of” gender or inability to leave.
3. Waiver of CAT Claim:
   • CAT protection requires proof of:
     1. More likely than not to face torture, and
     2. Governmental involvement or acquiescence.
   • The BIA rejected the claim on both elements.
   • On petition for review, counsel challenged only acquiescence, ignoring “likelihood of torture.”
   • Citing Debique, the court held the un-briefed ground dispositive, thereby forfeiting CAT relief.

Impact on Future Litigation

Although the order lacks precedential force, it is instructive for practitioners and immigration courts:

• Domestic-Violence-Based PSG Claims: The decision underscores the evidentiary hurdle that victims of intimate-partner violence must clear: proving that gender or “inability to leave” is a central, rather than incidental, motive. It thereby reinforces earlier BIA and Circuit authority emphasizing motive over conduct.
• Briefing Strategy: The ruling highlights a recurring appellate trap—failure to contest every independent basis for an adverse agency decision. Counsel must challenge all dispositive grounds or risk automatic affirmance.
• Use of Summary Orders: Even without precedential status, summary orders often serve as persuasive authority. Immigration judges in the Second Circuit may cite this decision for guidance on nexus analysis and waiver principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Nexus

The causal link between persecution and a statutorily protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). The applicant must show the ground is “one central reason” for the harm.

Particular Social Group (PSG)

A group of persons sharing a common immutable characteristic, socially distinct within the society in question, and defined with particularity. Examples: “Guatemalan women subjected to domestic violence” (recognized in Matter of A-R-C-G-), or “family members of anti-gang witnesses.”

Substantial Evidence Standard

A deferential appellate standard: The court must uphold the agency’s factual findings unless any reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.

CAT Protection

Relief under the Convention Against Torture requires proof that the applicant is more likely than not to be tortured in the destination country, with the consent or acquiescence (including willful blindness) of public officials.

Waiver / Abandonment on Appeal

Arguments not raised in an appellate brief are treated as waived. If the agency relied on multiple independent grounds to deny relief, failure to contest even one is fatal.

Conclusion

Acero-Angamarca v. Bondi reiterates two pivotal principles of U.S. asylum jurisprudence: the centrality of motive in nexus determinations and the unforgiving nature of issue abandonment on petition for review. For advocates, it is a cautionary tale—marshalling detailed evidence of persecutor motive is indispensable, and comprehensive briefing is mandatory. For adjudicators, the decision serves as a concise guide to evaluating domestic-violence claims and enforcing procedural defaults. Although labelled a “Summary Order,” the opinion’s practical influence will likely extend well beyond its non-precedential status, informing day-to-day asylum and CAT litigation throughout the Second Circuit.