Exhaustion and Nexus Requirements in Particular Social Group Claims: Guaman-Parades v. Bondi

Introduction

Guaman-Parades v. Bondi is a Second Circuit summary order issued on April 1, 2025, reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmation of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief for three Ecuadorian nationals. Petitioners Victor Gustavo Guaman-Parades, his wife Gloria Soraya Alvarado-Malla, and their son Jeanpierre Nicolas Guaman-Alvarado argued that they were persecuted in Ecuador on account of their resistance to gang recruitment and membership in “particular social groups.” The key issues in the appeal were: (1) whether Petitioners properly identified and preserved their proposed social groups before the IJ; (2) whether they demonstrated nexus—that is, that the harm they suffered or feared was “on account of” membership in those groups; and (3) whether their CAT claims were properly exhausted and supported by evidence of government acquiescence to torture.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that:

Petitioners waived their family-based and newly asserted “witnesses who oppose criminal activity” social groups by failing to present them before the IJ.
The agency’s findings on group cognizability and nexus were dispositive and supported by substantial evidence.
The CAT claims were unexhausted before the BIA and, in any event, failed because Petitioners did not show government acquiescence in prospective torture by gang members.

Accordingly, the petition was denied in full.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005): Establishes that factual findings of the BIA/IJ are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018): Clarifies that questions of law and the application of law to facts receive de novo review.
Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022): Holds that the “one central reason” standard applies equally to asylum and withholding of removal.
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014): Articulates the two-part test for particular social groups—cognizability and nexus.
Prabhudial v. Holder, 780 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2015): Explains that this Court’s review of a waiver finding is limited to whether the BIA erred in deeming an issue waived.
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020): Confirms that CAT relief predicated on non-state actors (e.g., gangs) requires evidence of government acquiescence.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded along three principal lines:

Exhaustion and Waiver: Petitioners introduced new social groups before the BIA that were never raised below. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) and well-established circuit precedent, issues not pressed before the IJ are waived. The court limited its review to whether the BIA erred in deeming the groups waived; Petitioners made no such challenge.
Cognizability and Nexus: Even if the groups had been properly preserved, Petitioners failed to carry their burden under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) to show that “one central reason” for persecution was membership in a particular social group. The agency’s nexus determination—linking alleged gang threats to family ties and resistance to recruitment—stood on substantial evidence.
CAT Relief Requirements: The CAT regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) demands proof that torture would occur “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.” Petitioners never raised this theory before the BIA (thus forfeiting it), and in any case offered no evidence that Ecuadorian authorities would condone gang-inflicted torture.

3. Impact

Although a non-precedential summary order, Guaman-Parades v. Bondi underscores several critical points for practitioners and adjudicators:

Preservation of Issues: Counsel must present all proposed social groups and theories of relief at the earliest administrative stage to avoid irrevocable waiver.
Nexus Analysis: Claimants face a stringent burden to link harm to protected characteristics; generic or family-based fears are often insufficient without detailed evidence.
CAT Demands Government Acquiescence: Asylum applicants cannot rely solely on private actors (e.g., gangs) unless they demonstrate state involvement or tolerance.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group: A group of persons who share a common, immutable characteristic or a fundamental societal bond.
Nexus (“One Central Reason”): The persecutor must target the applicant at least in part because of their protected characteristic.
Substantial Evidence Standard: Courts defer to the agency’s factual findings unless no reasonable adjudicator could reach the same conclusion.
Government Acquiescence (CAT): Torture by non-state actors counts only if public officials condone or turn a blind eye to it.

Conclusion

Guaman-Parades v. Bondi reaffirms that asylum and withholding applicants must meticulously preserve their claims and supply concrete evidence connecting feared harm to a protected ground. It also reinforces that CAT protection against torture by violent non-state actors hinges on showing state complicity. For practitioners, the decision is a cautionary tale: administrative advocacy must be comprehensive, and evidentiary submissions must squarely address both nexus and government acquiescence requirements to secure relief.