Guaman-Parades v. Bondi: Exhaustion of Social Group Claims and the “One Central Reason” Standard in Asylum Proceedings
1. Introduction
In Guaman-Parades v. Bondi, Nos. 23-7828 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summary order. The underlying case involves three Ecuadorian nationals—Victor Gustavo Guaman-Parades, his wife Gloria Soraya Alvarado-Malla, and their minor son Jeanpierre Nicolas Guaman-Alvarado—who sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). They alleged a well-founded fear of persecution by a violent Ecuadorian gang motivated by their resistance to recruitment and by family association.
The key legal issues presented were:
- Whether petitioners had identified a cognizable particular social group under U.S. asylum law;
- Whether petitioners demonstrated that “one central reason” for the threatened harm was their membership in that group;
- Whether arguments or group definitions raised for the first time on appeal were waived for failure to exhaust before the Immigration Judge (IJ); and
- Whether petitioners met the requirements for relief under the CAT, including government involvement or acquiescence in torture.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Second Circuit, in a summary order, affirmed the BIA’s October 24, 2023 decision affirming the IJ’s December 21, 2022 denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The court held:
- The petitioners abandoned certain claims by failing to present them before the BIA or in their appellate briefs. In particular, they waived a family-based social group and the nexus between harm and previously identified groups.
- The BIA correctly deemed waived any new particular social group definitions not raised before the IJ, including “those who opposed criminal activity.”
- The petitioners’ CAT claim was unexhausted and, in any event, failed on the merits because petitioners did not show the requisite government acquiescence or involvement in torture by gang members.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005): Established that appellate review of factual findings is under the substantial-evidence standard, and review of legal questions is de novo.
- Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018): Reaffirmed the standard of review and clarified de novo treatment of questions of law and application of law to fact.
- Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022): Confirmed that both asylum and withholding applicants must show that a protected ground was “one central reason” for persecution.
- Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014): Outlined the two-step inquiry for social group claims: (1) cognizability of the group, and (2) nexus between harm and group membership.
- Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114 (2d Cir. 2024): Clarified that failure to present an argument to the BIA results in forfeiture on appeal.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
The Second Circuit’s decision focused on two interlocking principles:
- Exhaustion and Waiver: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) and related BIA precedent, arguments and legal theories not advanced before the IJ and the BIA are forfeited. Petitioners’ attempt to re-cast their particular social group as “witnesses who opposed criminal activity” was properly deemed waived because that definition had not been presented at the IJ stage. The court underscored that “[w]e consider abandoned any claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief,” and that “failure to make legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.”
- “One Central Reason” Requirement: The court reaffirmed that both asylum and withholding claims must identify a protected ground that is “one central reason” for persecution. Even if petitioners’ groups had been considered, the IJ and BIA found no credible nexus between the gang’s threats and the petitioners’ purported group membership. That dispositive finding of fact was entitled to deferential review and stood under the substantial‐evidence standard.
3.3 Impact
Although summary orders do not carry precedential effect, Guaman-Parades v. Bondi highlights several practical lessons:
- Asylum applicants must present their precise social group definitions at the IJ level; any modification or expansion on appeal risks waiver.
- The “one central reason” standard remains rigorous and equally applicable to asylum and withholding claims, limiting creative group theories.
- Candidates for CAT relief must affirmatively demonstrate government acquiescence or complicity in non-state torture, and must exhaust such arguments before the BIA.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Particular Social Group: A category of persons who share a common, immutable characteristic (e.g., gender, family ties, past experiences) and are recognized in a particular society as distinct.
- One Central Reason: Asylum and withholding applicants must show that persecution was motivated, at least in part, by a protected characteristic; it need not be the sole reason, but it must be a central one.
- Exhaustion/Waiver: Legal arguments or factual claims not presented at the administrative level (before the IJ and the BIA) cannot later be raised in federal court; they are treated as forfeited.
- Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief: Requires proof that torture would likely occur with the involvement or acquiescence of a government official or entity, even if carried out by private actors.
5. Conclusion
Guaman-Parades v. Bondi serves as a cautionary reminder that in immigration jurisprudence:
- Precision and consistency in defining one’s particular social group are essential.
- All theories must be fully developed at each administrative stage to avoid waiver.
- The “one central reason” standard binds both asylum and withholding claims, curbing overbroad social group formulations.
- CAT claims require a clear showing of state involvement or acquiescence in torture.
Comments