Clarifying the Nexus Requirement in Withholding of Removal: Economic Motive Versus Protected Grounds

Introduction

Hernandez-Romero v. Garland (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025) addresses the evidentiary threshold for establishing a nexus between persecution and a protected ground in withholding of removal claims, as well as the standard for securing relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner Jose Daniel Hernandez-Romero, a native of Guatemala and self-identified indigenous Maya, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after suffering extortion and violence at the hands of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on timeliness, nexus, and government-acquiescence grounds. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied review, clarifying how economic motives undermine a claim of persecution based on race or social group and reinforcing the stringent burden for CAT relief.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), summarily denied the petition:

Asylum: Petitioner did not challenge the IJ’s finding that his asylum application was time-barred under the one-year filing requirement.
Withholding of Removal: The court held that petitioner’s own testimony showed MS-13 targeted him for real or presumed financial gain—not because of his indigenous status or membership in any particular social group—failing the nexus requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
CAT Relief: Generalized evidence of Guatemala’s crime and corruption levels did not establish it is “more likely than not” that petitioner would be tortured with the acquiescence of a public official, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

Under the highly deferential “substantial evidence” standard, the court found no reversible error in the BIA’s decision.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Xue v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2017) – articu- lates de novo review for legal questions and substantial evidence review for factual findings.
Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 365 (2021) – emphasizes deference to administrative fact-finding under the “highly deferential” standard.
Htun v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 1111, 1119, 1122 (10th Cir. 2016) – defines the CAT burden (“more likely than not”) and reiterates that the court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility.
Zhi Wei Pang v. Holder, 665 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 2012) – outlines the statutory withholding standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187, 1200 (10th Cir. 2005) – explains the “central reason” nexus test for asylum; the court noted both parties applied a similar standard to withholding.
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017) – contrasts circuits on whether withholding requires a “central reason” or simply “a reason” nexus; Tenth Circuit did not resolve the split but found petitioner's proof insufficient under either standard.
Escobar-Hernandez v. Barr, 940 F.3d 1358, 1362 (10th Cir. 2019) – holds country-condition evidence must be specific to the applicant’s circumstances to satisfy the CAT standard.

Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review
The court reaffirmed that legal rulings by the BIA are reviewed de novo, while factual determinations survive unless no “reasonable adjudicator” could accept the evidence. This “highly deferential” substantial-evidence standard forecloses reweighing witness credibility or undertaking a de novo factual appraisal.

2. Nexus in Withholding Claims
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), an applicant must show persecution is “on account of” race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Hernandez-Romero’s own testimony made clear that MS-13’s harassment and assault were motivated by extortion—gang members assumed he had money after returning from the U.S.—and that the gang recruits and extorts across ethnic and social lines. No reasonable adjudicator could conclude his indigenous Maya status was a motivating factor. The BIA therefore properly affirmed the IJ’s denial.

3. CAT Acquiescence Requirement
To qualify for CAT protection, an applicant must show it is “more likely than not” he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. The record in Hernandez-Romero’s case contained only generalized reports of Guatemala’s widespread gang violence and corruption, without any indication that officials would countenance or facilitate harm to this particular individual. The BIA’s finding that petitioner failed to meet his burden under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) was supported by substantial evidence.

Impact on Future Cases

Reinforces the critical importance of proving a protected-ground nexus above and beyond economic motives in withholding cases—applicants cannot rely on group identity alone when evidence shows gangs target for extortion.
Clarifies that broadly attested country-condition reports are insufficient for CAT relief absent applicant-specific evidence of likely government acquiescence in torture.
Signals to IJ and BIA panels the degree of deference owed to factfinders under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), limiting appellate courts from reweighing testimonial evidence or intervening in credibility determinations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Withholding vs. Asylum: Withholding of removal bars deportation to a country where the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened; asylum also provides a path to lawful permanent residence but carries a one-year filing deadline.
Particular Social Group: A protected ground under immigration law, requiring shared immutable characteristics or a fundamental social distinction.
Nexus Requirement: The persecution must be “on account of” a protected ground, meaning that without that ground the harm would not have occurred.
Substantial Evidence Standard: Appellate courts do not overturn factual findings if they are supported by reasonable, credible record evidence.
CAT Acquiescence: Torture eligibility requires showing that public officials would condone or actively participate in the harm.

Conclusion

Hernandez-Romero v. Garland crystallizes the stringent proof requirements for withholding of removal and CAT relief. It underscores that economic motives—such as extortion—cannot be conflated with persecution on account of race or social group, and that country-wide evidence of violence or corruption must be tailored to demonstrate likely government acquiescence in an individual’s torture. By applying a highly deferential substantial-evidence review, the Tenth Circuit has provided a clear precedent for adjudicators to enforce nexus and acquiescence requirements rigorously, shaping the landscape of future immigration relief proceedings.