Guaman-Parades v. Bondi: Waiver of Unraised Particular Social Group Claims in Asylum Appeals

Introduction

This commentary addresses the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s April 1, 2025 summary order in Guaman-Parades v. Bondi. Petitioners Victor Gustavo Guaman-Parades, his wife Gloria Soraya Alvarado-Malla, and their minor son Jeanpierre Nicolas Guaman-Alvarado—natives and citizens of Ecuador—sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief after fleeing threats from Ecuadorian gangs. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied relief on December 21, 2022; the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed on October 24, 2023. The Second Circuit denied the petition for review, emphasizing that Petitioners had waived key legal arguments by failing to present them before the IJ and had not established cognizable social‐group membership or required nexus.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ’s and BIA’s determinations under the substantial‐evidence standard for factual findings and de novo review for legal questions.
• Petitioners initially identified two particular social groups: (1) Ecuadorian men who resisted gang recruitment (and who are targeted by gangs) and (2) family members of such men. On appeal to the BIA, they proposed a third group: “those who oppose criminal activity.”
• The BIA deemed the family‐based group waived, refused to entertain the newly‐proposed “opposition” group in its entirety, and affirmed the IJ’s finding of no nexus (“one central reason”) between Petitioners’ fear and their membership in the groups they had originally asserted.
• Petitioners did not challenge the waiver or nexus findings in the Second Circuit, effectively abandoning those claims.
• Their CAT claim was likewise deemed unexhausted before the BIA and substantively deficient because they failed to show government involvement or acquiescence in potential torture.
• Accordingly, the court DENIED the petition for review in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005): Established that factual findings by the IJ and BIA are reviewed under the “substantial evidence” standard.
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 facts in removal proceedings.
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014): Defined the two‐part test for particular social groups, requiring (a) cognizability of the group and (b) targeting on account of membership.
Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022): Held that the “one central reason” standard applies equally to asylum and withholding of removal.
Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114 (2d Cir. 2024): Explained exhaustion requirements, precluding review of claims not raised before the BIA.
Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023): Reiterated that failure to brief or argue an issue on appeal constitutes abandonment.
Prabhudial v. Holder, 780 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2015): Confirmed that when the BIA deems an argument waived, appellate review is limited to whether that waiver was in error.
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020): Emphasized that CAT relief based on gang violence requires proof of government acquiescence.
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005): Held that cursory, unsupported claims are deemed abandoned on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Second Circuit’s decision turned on two foundational principles in immigration law:

Exhaustion and Waiver: Petitioners’ attempt to redefine their core social‐group theory before the BIA (as “those who oppose criminal activity”) came too late. They failed to raise that precise formulation before the IJ, and under Punin and related authorities, such an argument is waived and cannot be introduced on appeal.
Nexus and Cognizability: Even assuming arguendo the original social‐group formulations were preserved, the BIA and IJ correctly found no evidence that Petitioners were targeted “on account of” their membership in a cognizable group. There was no proof that gang members recognized or persecuted them because they were “Ecuadorian men who resisted recruitment” or family members of such men, nor was there government involvement to satisfy CAT’s high standard.

Impact

The ruling in Guaman-Parades reinforces several key lessons for immigration practitioners and applicants:

Clients must present every legal theory—including proposed particular social groups—to the IJ. Attempting to introduce new claims on appeal invites summary waiver.
Advocates should marshal clear evidence of both cognizability and nexus. Generalized or speculative fears of gang retaliation are unlikely to satisfy the “one central reason” requirement.
CAT claims predicated on private violence demand proof of government acquiescence—merely showing gang threats is insufficient.
The summary‐order process in the Second Circuit underscores the importance of precision and completeness in the immigration record, as non‐precedential decisions can nonetheless be outcome‐determinative.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Evidence Standard: Courts defer to fact‐findings by the IJ/BIA if supported by reasonable, solid evidence, overturning only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to reach a different result.
Particular Social Group: A classification of people who share a common immutable characteristic or a deeply held shared trait. It must be “cognizable” under the statute.
One Central Reason: For asylum or withholding, an applicant must prove that protected‐ground membership was at least a central reason for persecution—not merely an incidental or secondary factor.
Exhaustion/Waiver: Arguments or evidence not presented to the IJ, then undeveloped before the BIA, are “waived”—they cannot be introduced at the circuit‐court stage.
Government Acquiescence (CAT): To win CAT relief for private‐actor violence, applicants must show that public authorities knew of the risk and consented or turned a blind eye.

Conclusion

Guaman-Parades v. Bondi serves as a firm reminder that procedural precision is as critical as substantive proof in asylum and removal proceedings. The Second Circuit’s denial underscores the strict exhaustion rules and the rigorous nexus and cognizability requirements for particular social group claims. For practitioners, the case highlights the necessity of identifying and fully developing every legal theory with supporting evidence before the Immigration Judge to preserve appellate rights. In the broader immigration landscape, this summary order consolidates the circuit’s approach to waiver, nexus, and the CAT acquiescence standard, shaping future protections for individuals fleeing gang violence.