Economic Extortion Is Not Political Persecution: The Nexus Clarified in Parra-Villalobos v. U.S. Attorney General (11th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In Parra-Villalobos v. U.S. Attorney General, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed a strict interpretation of the “nexus” requirement that links harm to a statutorily protected ground under U.S. asylum law. The petitioners—Nidia Yamile Torres-Rodriguez, her husband Hernan Jose Parra-Villalobos, and their minor child—sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after threats from the Colombian guerrilla group ELN. They argued that the threats were tied to Torres-Rodriguez’s alleged “political opinion” supporting the Colombian government. The immigration judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected the claim, finding that ELN’s conduct was driven by financial motives rather than political persecution. The Eleventh Circuit, via a non-published per curiam opinion, denied review and clarified that economic extortion, even when perpetrated by a revolutionary faction, does not automatically amount to persecution on account of a political opinion.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Past Harm Nexus: The Court held that the record supported the IJ’s finding that ELN threatened Torres-Rodriguez for her access to public funds, not for her (actual or imputed) political opinion.
Well-Founded Fear: Because the past harm did not satisfy the nexus requirement, the presumption of future persecution did not arise; the petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear based on a protected ground.
Withholding of Removal: Failure under the lower asylum standard necessarily doomed the petition for withholding, which requires a higher “more likely than not” probability of persecution.
CAT Protection: Substantial evidence indicated that the Colombian government actively opposes ELN; therefore, the petitioner could not show government acquiescence to likely torture.
Stay of Removal: The emergency motion for stay was denied because the petition itself lacked merit.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel grounded its reasoning in a line of Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court cases:

I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) – Established that persecution must be on account of the victim’s (not the persecutor’s) political opinion. The Court quoted Elias-Zacarias’s emphasis on the applicant’s burden to prove motive.
Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) – Clarified that private violence and criminal activity unrelated to a protected ground do not qualify as persecution. The panel analogized ELN’s threats to Ruiz’s “private violence.”
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) – Held that failure on the asylum standard forecloses withholding; cited as binding on that point.
Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2021) and Laguna Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 130 F.4th 915 (11th Cir. 2025) – Both restate the substantial evidence and deferential review standards.
Lingeswaran v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) – Confirmed that government efforts to combat torture negate the “acquiescence” element under CAT.
Older Eleventh-Circuit asylum principles (Diallo, Rodriguez Morales, Sanchez Jimenez) were invoked to define standards for past persecution, future fear, and the “central reason” test.

Collectively, these precedents reinforced three propositions: (1) criminal extortion is not inherently political; (2) the petitioner bears the burden of showing that a statutorily protected ground was at least “one central reason” for harm; (3) government opposition to the persecutor defeats CAT “acquiescence.”

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

Standard of Review: Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, the IJ’s findings were treated as the final agency decision. Factual findings were reviewed under the highly deferential “substantial evidence” standard.
Nexus Analysis: The IJ found—and the Eleventh Circuit agreed—that ELN’s objective was to siphon money. Although ELN is an insurgent group opposed to the Colombian government, the petitioner produced no “specific, detailed facts” showing that ELN targeted her because of her beliefs.
No Political Expression Evidence: Torres-Rodriguez supported the ruling party but had not engaged in visible political activity. Her role was managerial and financial, rendering her a lucrative, not ideological, target.
Well-Founded Fear & Withholding: Absent a nexus, the chain of statutory presumptions collapsed; the higher standard for withholding therefore could not be met.
CAT Acquiescence: The panel emphasized that ELN’s continuous attacks on police stations demonstrated the Colombian government’s opposition, defeating any claim of government acquiescence.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases and Immigration Law

Although unpublished, Eleventh-Circuit practitioners will cite Parra-Villalobos as persuasive authority for:

Economic-Motivated Violence Rule: Extortion by political or paramilitary actors must be tied to the applicant’s political opinion to qualify for asylum. Mere association with government-linked finances is insufficient.
Heightened Evidentiary Burden on Nexus: Applicants must proffer “specific, detailed facts” demonstrating that the persecutor targeted them for a protected ground—not simply because they were convenient to the persecutor’s goals.
CAT Acquiescence Clarified: Ongoing armed conflict between a guerrilla group and the state typically negates an acquiescence claim; counsel must produce stronger evidence of governmental complicity or willful blindness.
Efficient Judicial Resources: The decision underscores that when asylum fails on nexus, courts will summarily dispose of withholding and CAT claims without extended discussion.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Persecution: Serious harm or threats of harm. Must be because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Nexus Requirement: The legal link between the harm and one of the protected grounds. Think of it as showing the persecutor’s motive. If the motive is money (extortion), the nexus is missing.
Well-Founded Fear: An objectively reasonable and subjectively genuine fear of future persecution. Requires a 10% or greater chance of persecution, but still must satisfy the nexus.
Withholding of Removal: Stronger remedy than asylum but harder to get. The applicant must prove it is “more likely than not” (over 50%) they will be persecuted for a protected reason if returned.
Convention Against Torture (CAT): Protects against return to a country where the person would “more likely than not” be tortured. Critical element is that a government official authorizes, consents to, or is willfully blind to the torture.
Substantial Evidence Review: The appellate court must uphold agency fact-finding unless the record compels a different result—an extremely high bar.

5.Conclusion

Parra-Villalobos v. U.S. Attorney General provides a concise yet impactful clarification of asylum jurisprudence within the Eleventh Circuit: economic extortion, even when carried out by a politically motivated insurgent group, does not constitute persecution on account of political opinion unless clear evidence shows that the victim’s beliefs were a central reason for the harm. The decision reinforces the heavy evidentiary burden on applicants to demonstrate motive, illustrates the domino effect of a failed nexus on related forms of relief, and emphasizes that active state opposition to non-state actors defeats CAT claims. As immigration practitioners craft future filings, they must separate financial or opportunistic violence from genuine political persecution and marshal specific proof of governmental complicity when invoking CAT. This case stands as a cautionary tale: without a well-documented nexus, even compelling narratives of danger will not prevail in the asylum arena.