Losada-Velin v. Bondi: Reinforcing the Nexus Requirement in Asylum Claims

Introduction

Losada-Velin v. Bondi is a summary order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 15, 2025. Petitioner Olga Livia Losada-Velin, an Ecuadorian and Spanish national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She alleged that she and her family suffered physical harm—most notably a 2016 sexual assault and a 2015 motorcycle crash—at the hands of indigenous actors, and that such harm was connected to her race, nationality, family status and her deceased father’s political activities. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief for failure to establish a protected-ground nexus; the Second Circuit denied her petition for review. Key issues include the evidentiary standard for proving nexus, the distinction between general criminal violence and persecution, and procedural waiver of CAT claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, in a summary order, affirmed the BIA’s decision denying Losada-Velin’s applications. Applying the substantial-evidence standard to factual findings and de novo review to legal questions, the Court held that:

Losada-Velin failed to demonstrate that her rape or her husband’s motorcycle accident was motivated by a protected ground (race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or imputed political opinion).
Threatening phone calls and verbal harassment, unlinked to concrete physical harm, did not rise to the level of persecution absent proof of motive.
Her attempt to tie the violence to her father’s failed 2008 political campaign was undermined by timing discrepancies and absence of threats toward her father or siblings.
Her single-sentence brief on CAT relief amounted to abandonment of that claim.

Consequently, the petition for review was denied, all pending motions were denied, and any stays were vacated.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Yan Chen v. Gonzales (417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005)): Allowed supplementation of IJ decision by BIA’s reasoning.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions (891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018)): Clarified standard of review—substantial evidence for facts, de novo for legal issues.
Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland (3 F.4th 569, 591 n.25 (2d Cir. 2021)): Reviewed nexus determinations under substantial-evidence standard.
Castro v. Holder (597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010)): Defined “sufficiently strong nexus.”
INS v. Elias-Zacarias (502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)): Required direct or circumstantial evidence of persecutor’s motive.
Melgar de Torres v. Reno (191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir. 1999)): Distinguished general criminal violence from persecution.
Quituizaca v. Garland (52 F.4th 103, 109–14 (2d Cir. 2022)): Applied “one central reason” standard to both asylum and withholding.
Siewe v. Gonzales (480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007)): Affirmed fact-finder’s choice among competing inferences.
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey (546 F.3d 138, 157–58 (2d Cir. 2008)): Held that failure to introduce evidence supports denial under substantial-evidence standard.
KC v. Garland (108 F.4th 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2024)): Confirmed that unfulfilled threats without aggravating factors are mere harassment.
Jian Xing Huang v. INS (421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)): Rejected speculative fear absent solid record support.
Yuequing Zhang v. Gonzales (426 F.3d 540, 545 & n.7 (2d Cir. 2005)): Required specific evidence of persecutor’s motive; deemed CAT claim abandoned where addressed in one sentence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the well-established standards for asylum and withholding relief:

Protected-Ground Nexus: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) and § 1208.16(b), an applicant must show persecution or fear thereof “on account of” a protected ground.
Substantial Evidence: Administrative fact-findings stand unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to reach a contrary conclusion (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
One Central Reason: The Court reiterated that persecution must be motivated at least in part by race, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion.

Applying these principles, the Court found:

No direct or circumstantial evidence linked the sexual assault or crash to Losada-Velin’s protected characteristics or her father’s political activity.
Threatening communications and community harassment began years earlier but were unconnected to the violent incidents; absent a clear motive, they remained generalized criminal hostility.
Timing and lack of threats toward her father or other family members undercut any inference of politically motivated persecution.
By addressing CAT relief in a perfunctory, single-sentence argument, Losada-Velin forfeited review of that claim.

Impact

Though summary orders carry no precedential effect, this decision underscores critical practical lessons:

Asylum applicants must produce concrete evidence—direct statements or robust circumstantial indicators—demonstrating persecutors’ motives.
Generalized crime or non-targeted violence, even if severe, does not satisfy the persecution requirement absent nexus.
Procedural diligence in briefing claims is essential; bare legal conclusions without supporting analysis risk abandonment.
Practitioners should marshal chronological consistency and corroborative testimony when asserting politically or socially motivated harm.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Evidence Standard: Courts must uphold factual findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could agree with the agency.
Nexus Requirement: Persecution must be connected “on account of” a protected characteristic—not merely random or opportunistic violence.
One Central Reason Standard: A protected ground must be a central reason for the harm, though not necessarily the sole one.
Withholding of Removal: Similar to asylum but imposes a higher burden—applicant must show a “more likely than not” probability of persecution.
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief: Requires proof that torture would likely occur with government acquiescence; failure to brief adequately results in waiver.
Particular Social Group: Defined group sharing immutable or fundamental characteristics; here, “immediate family members of a deceased political figure” was alleged but unsupported.

Conclusion

Losada-Velin v. Bondi reaffirms the stringent evidentiary demands placed on asylum and withholding applicants to link specific acts of harm to protected grounds. It highlights the insufficiency of generalized threats or violence unaccompanied by demonstrable persecutorial motive. Moreover, the decision illustrates the peril of perfunctory legal arguments: claims that are not meaningfully developed in briefing may be deemed abandoned. Going forward, immigration practitioners must assemble and present targeted evidence—eyewitness accounts, contemporaneous statements by persecutors, documentary proof of motive—to satisfy the nexus requirement and avoid procedural forfeiture.