No Duty to Infer “Implied” PSGs; Failures on Persecution and Nexus Obviate “Unable/Unwilling” Findings; Defective NTAs Do Not Strip Jurisdiction — Sixth Circuit in Torres de Lopez v. Bondi

Introduction

This petition for review arises from an asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) case brought by Maria Emerita Torres de Lopez and her three minor children (collectively, Petitioners), citizens of El Salvador. The family sought protection based on threats and violence tied to MS-13, focusing on the father’s past service as a Salvadoran police officer and the family’s asserted membership in a particular social group (PSG) and an imputed political opinion theory. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the witnesses credible but denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The Sixth Circuit now denies the petition.

This commentary unpacks the court’s decision, which reinforces several recurring principles in protection cases: (1) harassment and generalized criminality do not amount to persecution; (2) the nexus requirement demands evidence that a protected ground is one central reason for feared harm; (3) agencies need not address non-dispositive elements (such as government “unable or unwilling”) if an applicant fails threshold persecution/nexus showings; (4) applicants must clearly delineate any proposed PSG at the IJ level—the agency has no duty to intuit “implied” groups; (5) CAT relief requires specific proof of state instigation, consent, or acquiescence, not merely evidence of widespread violence; and (6) defective Notices to Appear (NTAs) lacking time/place do not deprive immigration courts of jurisdiction in the Sixth Circuit.

Summary of the Opinion

• Asylum/Withholding under INA: Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding of no past persecution and no well-founded fear of future persecution. The record showed harassment and threats directed at the former police-officer husband, not specific threats or harm to Petitioners. Petitioners also failed to establish the required nexus between alleged harm and their protected grounds (PSG and imputed political opinion).
• “Unable or unwilling” to protect: Because Petitioners did not meet the persecution/nexus elements, the agency was not required to decide whether El Salvador was unable or unwilling to protect them.
• PSG articulation: The agency properly declined to analyze an “implied” PSG (“immediate family members of Alvarado”) that Petitioners had not clearly delineated to the IJ. Applicants must precisely specify their PSGs on the record.
• CAT: Petitioners did not show that torture was more likely than not, nor that any torture would occur with state instigation, consent, or acquiescence. Generalized evidence of gang violence was insufficient, particularly given findings that El Salvador is actively combating criminal organizations.
• Jurisdiction (NTA defect): In line with Sixth Circuit precedent, an NTA lacking time/place does not strip the immigration court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Niz-Chavez does not change that jurisdictional rule in this circuit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Decision

• Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2009) (abrogated on other grounds by Loper Bright): Cited for the framework of reviewing the BIA’s decision—and, to the extent adopted, the IJ’s reasoning. The court reiterates de novo review for legal questions and substantial evidence review for factual findings, also referencing Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 688 (6th Cir. 2015); Marikasi v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2016); and Slyusar v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir. 2014).
• Umaña-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013); Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004); Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland, 87 F.4th 838 (6th Cir. 2023): These cases define the asylum framework: a “refugee” must show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, which consists of harm inflicted by the state or actors the state is unwilling or unable to control. Pilica also supplies the “well-founded fear” elements and clarifies that harassment alone is insufficient; Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) reinforces this.
• Cruz-Guzman v. Barr, 920 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 2019): Reiterates the nexus requirement: a protected ground must be “one central reason” for persecution.
• Amezola-Garcia v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 135 (6th Cir. 2016): If family members who are similarly situated and within the same protected group remain unharmed in the country of removal, that undermines the reasonableness of a fear of future persecution.
• Ortiz v. Garland, 6 F.4th 685 (6th Cir. 2021) and INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976): Agencies need not make findings on issues that are not dispositive to the outcome. The panel relies on this to approve the agency’s decision not to reach “unable or unwilling” after finding no persecution and no nexus.
• Mateo-Esteban v. Garland, 125 F.4th 762 (6th Cir. 2025): Applicants must “clearly indicate on the record before the Immigration Judge the exact delineation” of any PSG. The agency need not infer or analyze an “implied” PSG never expressly presented at the merits hearing.
• CAT authorities: Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1), (a)(7); Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015). These define the CAT standard (more likely than not to be tortured) and “acquiescence,” which includes willful blindness, requiring awareness and a breach of duty to intervene.
• Generalized crime insufficient (CAT and asylum contexts): Yousif v. Garland, 53 F.4th 928 (6th Cir. 2022); Ixcoy v. Holder, 416 F. App’x 522 (6th Cir. 2011); and Koliada v. INS, 259 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2001), clarify that generalized crime, economic, and environmental concerns are not persecution on a protected ground.
• Jurisdiction and NTAs: Ramos Rafael v. Garland, 15 F.4th 797 (6th Cir. 2021) (post–Niz-Chavez) and Tomas-Morales v. Garland, 2022 WL 154343 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2022), reaffirm that an NTA’s omission of time/place does not deprive immigration courts of jurisdiction. The court explicitly rejects the argument that Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), alters that jurisdictional analysis in the Sixth Circuit. United States v. Ferguson, 868 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2017), provides the intra-circuit rule of orderliness binding the panel to published circuit precedent.

Legal Reasoning

1) No past persecution and no well-founded fear of future persecution

The panel affirms the IJ/BIA’s conclusion that the record reflects harassment and generalized criminal risk rather than persecution. Although the testimony about Alvarado (the husband’s) encounters with MS-13 was credited, the opinion underscores a critical distinction: the record contained no specific threats or harm directed at the Petitioners themselves, and their testimony did not describe physical injury, detention, or other significant deprivation of liberty.

On future persecution, the court identifies several deficits:

• Specificity and immediacy: The threats were directed at the former police officer, and the family remained in El Salvador for over a year after he left without concrete harm. The record does not show a reasonable possibility of future persecution targeting the Petitioners themselves.
• Comparative evidence of similarly situated family members: Parents/family members who fall within the same purported PSG remain unharmed in El Salvador, undermining the reasonableness of Petitioners’ fear (Amezola-Garcia).
• Generalized criminality: Concerns about country conditions and gang violence, while real, do not by themselves establish a well-founded fear on a protected ground (Koliada).
• Career change and time lapse: Alvarado is no longer a police officer. There is no record evidence that MS-13 targets the families of retired or former officers as such. The temporal gap and absence of ongoing individualized threats lessen the objective reasonableness of fear.

2) Nexus: “One central reason” not shown

Petitioners advanced two protected-ground theories: membership in a PSG (“immediate family members of a former active-duty police officer”) and persecution on account of an imputed political opinion (those of the police). The court holds that the record lacks evidence linking harm or risk to these protected grounds:

• PSG theory: No record evidence showed threats or harm to Petitioners because they were the immediate family of a former police officer. The continued safety of similarly situated relatives further weakens any nexus.
• Imputed political opinion: The record does not indicate that MS-13 imputed police political beliefs to Petitioners. Mere speculation or generalized hostility toward law enforcement is not sufficient; evidence must show that protected-ground animus was one central reason for the feared harm (Cruz-Guzman).

3) “Unable or unwilling” need not be reached when other asylum elements fail

Petitioners faulted the agency for not expressly deciding whether the Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to control MS-13. The panel explains that “unable or unwilling” is not a standalone path to asylum. Because Petitioners failed to establish persecution on a protected ground, the agency correctly declined to resolve a non-dispositive element (Ortiz; Bagamasbad).

4) No obligation to analyze an “implied” PSG

Petitioners argued that the IJ/BIA should have considered an additional, “implied” PSG (“immediate family members of Alvarado”) beyond the PSG they explicitly raised. Relying on Mateo-Esteban (2025), the court emphasizes a bright-line procedural requirement: applicants must “clearly indicate on the record before the Immigration Judge the exact delineation” of any PSG. The agency is not required to infer or reconstruct new PSGs from the narrative. This clarifies litigants’ burden: the PSG must be expressly and precisely stated at the IJ level.

5) CAT denial: No state instigation, consent, or acquiescence

For CAT relief, Petitioners needed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by, at the instigation of, or with the consent/acquiescence of a public official. The record, at most, showed widespread gang violence. That is not enough. The court notes agency findings that El Salvador is actively combating gangs—evidence inconsistent with state acquiescence. Without proof of governmental awareness coupled with a breach of the duty to intervene (or willful blindness), CAT cannot succeed (Liti; Zaldana Menijar; Yousif; Ixcoy).

6) Jurisdictional challenge rejected

Petitioners’ argument that a defective NTA (lacking time/place) deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction fails under binding circuit precedent. Ramos Rafael (post–Niz-Chavez) holds that, for jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the NTA contain all required information in a single document. The panel follows that published authority, noting the Sixth Circuit’s rule of orderliness (Ferguson), and explains that Niz-Chavez—a stop-time rule case—does not alter the jurisdictional analysis in this circuit (Tomas-Morales).

Impact and Significance

• PSG pleading practice: The court’s reliance on Mateo-Esteban (2025) underscores a strict requirement: applicants must precisely delineate each PSG before the IJ. Practitioners should include clear, discrete PSG formulations in the application and merits hearing, supported by evidence on social distinction, particularity, and immutability (even though the court here resolved the case on persecution/nexus grounds).
• Nexus evidence must be individualized: Where threats are historically directed at a law-enforcement officer, applicants need direct, credible evidence that the family itself is threatened on account of a protected ground. The continued safety of similarly situated relatives will weigh heavily against future-persecution claims (Amezola-Garcia).
• Generalized violence will not suffice: Evidence of high crime or gang presence in El Salvador, without more, will neither establish persecution/nexus nor satisfy CAT’s acquiescence requirement—especially where the record shows the state actively combats gangs.
• Procedural economy at the agency: The decision reiterates that IJs/BIA need not address non-dispositive elements when an applicant fails on threshold issues. Applicants must build their case on each required element rather than relying on one strong prong to carry the rest.
• Jurisdictional challenges based on NTAs are foreclosed in the Sixth Circuit: Post–Niz-Chavez arguments that an NTA’s omissions strip IJ jurisdiction remain non-starters under Ramos Rafael.
• Credibility is not enough: Even when testimony is credited, applicants must meet the legal standards for persecution, nexus, and CAT, with specific evidence tied to their circumstances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Asylum vs. Withholding (INA): Asylum requires showing past persecution or a “well-founded fear” of future persecution on a protected ground, a standard lower than withholding. Withholding requires a “clear probability” (more likely than not) of persecution on a protected ground. If asylum fails for lack of persecution or nexus, withholding typically fails, too, because it has a higher burden.
• Persecution vs. Harassment: Persecution involves serious harm—physical injury, detention, or significant deprivations—by the government or actors it cannot or will not control. Harassment, intimidation, or generalized criminal risk ordinarily does not meet this threshold.
• Nexus (“one central reason”): There must be a causal connection between the persecutor’s motive and the applicant’s race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or PSG. Generalized hostility or opportunistic criminal motives are insufficient.
• Particular Social Group (PSG): A PSG is a group defined by characteristics that are immutable or fundamental to identity, and that is socially distinct and particular in the relevant society. Critically, applicants must clearly define the PSG for the IJ; the agency is not obligated to consider unarticulated or “implied” formulations.
• Imputed Political Opinion: A claim that persecutors will attribute certain political beliefs to the applicant. It requires evidence that the persecutor actually imputes those views and targets the applicant for that reason.
• “Unable or Unwilling” to Protect: Part of showing persecution by non-state actors. But it is not independently dispositive—applicants must also establish persecution and nexus. Agencies may decline to decide this element if others fail.
• CAT “Acquiescence” and Willful Blindness: CAT requires showing that torture would be carried out by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. “Acquiescence” includes willful blindness—awareness coupled with failure to act. General crime rates do not prove acquiescence.
• Substantial Evidence Review: The appellate court defers to the agency’s factual findings unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise—a deferential standard.
• NTA and Jurisdiction: In the Sixth Circuit, an NTA that omits time/place does not deprive the immigration court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Niz-Chavez does not change that rule in this circuit.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Torres de Lopez v. Bondi underscores disciplined application of well-settled asylum and CAT principles. The court affirms: harassment and generalized insecurity are not persecution; nexus requires concrete, individualized proof; IJs and the BIA need not reach non-dispositive elements when other core elements fail; PSGs must be precisely delineated before the IJ—no duty exists to analyze “implied” groups; CAT relief requires proof of state instigation, consent, or acquiescence, not just widespread violence; and defective NTAs do not strip immigration courts of jurisdiction in this circuit.

For practitioners, the opinion is a reminder to: (1) plead PSGs with precision at the merits stage; (2) marshal specific, individualized evidence of threats or harm to each applicant; (3) substantiate nexus with concrete indicia of motive; (4) address the continued safety of similarly situated relatives; and (5) develop CAT records that show governmental awareness and non-intervention, not merely high crime rates. Even with credible testimony, the legal elements must be met with targeted, persuasive evidence.