Guaman-Parades v. Bondi: Enforcing Waiver in Social-Group Asylum Claims

Introduction

In Guaman-Parades v. Bondi, 23-7828 (2nd Cir. Apr. 1, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for an Ecuadorian family. The petitioners—Victor Gustavo Guaman-Parades, his wife Gloria Soraya Alvarado-Malla, and their son Jeanpierre Nicolas Guaman-Alvarado—alleged past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution by Ecuadorian gangs on account of their resistance to criminal recruitment and their family ties. The core issue on appeal was whether the petitioners could rely on a newly asserted “particular social group” (“those who oppose criminal activity” or “witnesses who opposed criminal activity”) when that group had not been presented to the IJ.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit, sitting in a summary order, applied deferential standards to the agency’s factual findings and reviewed legal questions de novo. It held:

The petitioners waived their family-based social-group theory by failing to pursue it before the IJ.
The petitioners also waived any new grouping of “those who oppose criminal activity” by not raising it at the IJ level.
Because these waived theories were dispositive, the court declined to reach cognizability or nexus issues.
The CAT claim was unexhausted before the BIA and, in any event, failed for lack of evidence of government acquiescence.

The petition for review was denied in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s decision rested on well-established Second Circuit authorities:

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) – established that we review BIA-modified IJ decisions under the substantial evidence standard for factual findings.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) – clarified de novo review for legal questions and the application of law to fact.
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) – set out the two-part test for “particular social group” claims: (1) the group must be cognizable; and (2) membership must be a central reason for persecution.
Quitoizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022) – confirmed that the “one central reason” standard applies equally to asylum and withholding of removal.
Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023) – held that issues not adequately presented in a brief are abandoned on appeal.
Prabhudial v. Holder, 780 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2015) – explained limited review when the BIA deems an issue waived.
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020) – underscored that CAT relief based on non-state actors (e.g., gangs) requires proof of government acquiescence.
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) – deemed undeveloped arguments abandoned.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in discrete steps:

Standard of Review: Factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; legal questions and their application de novo.
Asylum and Withholding Requirements: Petitioners needed past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a protected ground and to show that protected status was “one central reason” for the harm.
Particular Social Group Waiver: The BIA correctly found that the petitioners had waived the family-based group and could not introduce a new group on appeal. The Second Circuit limited its review to whether waiver was in error and the petitioners chose not to challenge it.
Nexus and Cognizability: Because waiver was dispositive, neither the IJ nor the BIA reached whether the proposed groups were cognizable or whether there was sufficient nexus between gang persecution and social-group membership.
CAT Claim: Unexhausted before the BIA and, in any case, failed for lack of state acquiescence under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

Impact

This summary order reinforces several important lessons for practitioners and adjudicators:

Strict Preservation of Issues: Asylum applicants must present the same protected-ground theories before the IJ and the BIA or risk waiver.
Consistency in Social-Group Definitions: Changing or broadening particular-social-group definitions on appeal will ordinarily be rejected.
Strategic Briefing: Detailed, group-by-group analysis is critical at every level to avoid forfeiture.
CAT Acquiescence Requirement: As gang-based CAT claims grow, practitioners must gather evidence of government acquiescence or complicity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Particular Social Group”: A class of persons with a shared immutable or fundamental characteristic that is socially distinct (e.g., “Ecuadorian men targeted by gangs”).
“Waiver”: A failure to raise or brief an argument before the IJ or BIA, which bars the courts from considering it on appeal.
“One Central Reason”: A requirement that protected-status membership must be at least one of the main motivations for persecution.
“Substantial Evidence”: A deferential standard under which factual findings stand unless “any reasonable adjudicator” would be compelled to disagree.
“De novo Review”: The court gives no deference to the agency’s legal conclusions, reviewing them afresh.

Conclusion

Guaman-Parades v. Bondi underscores the critical importance of presenting consistent, well-defined social-group claims at every level of asylum litigation. By enforcing waiver for newly minted group definitions on appeal, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the principle that asylum seekers must “front-load” their arguments before the IJ and BIA. The decision also highlights the evidentiary hurdles in gang-based CAT claims, particularly the need to demonstrate government acquiescence. For practitioners, the case is a cautionary tale: thorough, early briefing of all protected-ground theories is indispensable to securing judicial review on appeal.