No More Boilerplate: Fourth Circuit Requires Meaningful Engagement with Country‑Conditions Evidence in Gender‑Based Asylum and CAT Claims

Introduction

In Reyna Alfaro‑Zelaya v. Bondi, the Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review, vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision, and remanded because the agency failed to meaningfully engage with extensive country‑conditions evidence concerning systemic violence against women in Honduras. The case arises from a Honduran mother’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after sustained stalking, threats, and attempted abduction by a man she rebuffed, along with a history of gender‑based abuse by other men.

The immigration judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding no credibility, no cognizable particular social group (PSG), no nexus even assuming credibility, and no CAT likelihood or acquiescence. The BIA affirmed on narrower grounds: it assumed credibility but affirmed on lack of nexus and rejected CAT relief for lack of government consent or acquiescence. The Fourth Circuit did not resolve the merits of nexus. Instead, it held that the BIA and IJ abused their discretion by failing to analyze probative, unrebutted country‑conditions evidence that bears directly on nexus and on government acquiescence for CAT.

Judge Wynn authored the majority opinion joined by Chief Judge Diaz. Judge Wynn also penned a separate concurrence urging reversal on the asylum claim based on a mixed‑motive analysis and a sex‑based inference akin to Title VII jurisprudence. Judge Wilkinson dissented, warning against reliance on generalized country‑conditions reports and emphasizing deference to agency fact‑finding.

Summary of the Opinion

Holding: The BIA and IJ abused their discretion by failing to meaningfully address country‑conditions evidence central to the petitioner’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
Relief: Petition for review granted; BIA’s decision vacated; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Scope: The court expressly did not decide the asylum nexus question or PSG cognizability; it remanded for the agency to consider the record holistically, including country‑conditions evidence.
CAT: The agency’s analysis of government acquiescence was truncated and did not engage testimony about police non‑response and reports indicating high rates of impunity and systemic gender‑based violence.
Asylum/Withholding: Although the BIA affirmed only on nexus, it failed to grapple with country‑conditions evidence that could contextualize the persecutor’s motives and the petitioner’s targeting as a Honduran woman and an unmarried mother.
Exhaustion/Waiver: The petitioner did not exhaust reliance on abuse by other men (uncle, prior partners) as a nexus theory. However, the government waived a late-breaking exhaustion argument aimed at the country‑conditions theory by not raising it in its briefing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Nken v. Holder; Chenery: Appellate review is confined to the grounds invoked by the agency. When it is unclear that the agency considered key issues, the proper course is remand. The court invoked Chenery/Nken to decline deciding nexus and to require the BIA to address the record evidence in the first instance.
Tassi v. Holder: When the BIA adopts and supplements the IJ’s reasoning, the court reviews both decisions. Here, both failed to address pivotal country‑conditions evidence.
Standard of Review (Cruz v. Sessions): The court reviews factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo but may set aside decisions for abuse of discretion when the agency disregards important aspects of the claim.
Abuse-of-Discretion Line of Cases:
- Zavaleta‑Policiano v. Sessions: The BIA abuses discretion when it arbitrarily ignores legally significant evidence; factfinders must not disregard unrebutted evidence.
- Ai Hua Chen v. Holder; Casalena v. INS: Agencies need not rebut every piece of evidence line by line, but they must provide more than boilerplate and must give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting material evidence.
- Rodriguez‑Arias v. Whitaker: A “wholesale failure” to discuss country‑conditions evidence is itself an abuse of discretion; the court cited this as a close analogue.
- Funez‑Ortiz v. McHenry (2025): Reiterates that stating one has reviewed the record is not enough if legally relevant information is arbitrarily ignored.
CAT Standard (Turkson v. Holder): The noncitizen must show it is more likely than not they will be tortured and that such torture would occur with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. The majority found the BIA’s analysis on acquiescence inadequately reasoned in light of unrebutted evidence.
Asylum/Withholding Elements (Portillo Flores v. Garland (en banc); Djadjou v. Holder): The court recited the statutory refugee elements and clarified that withholding rises and falls with asylum when the latter fails on a lower burden. Because the BIA tethered withholding to its asylum nexus denial, both had to be vacated together (see Cordova v. Holder).
Nexus and Mixed Motives (Alvarez Lagos v. Barr; Perez Vasquez v. Garland; Hernandez‑Avalos v. Lynch; Chicas‑Machado v. Garland): Multiple Fourth Circuit decisions emphasize that protected‑ground reasons may be intertwined with other motives; the BIA errs when it applies an excessively narrow, single‑motive frame. The concurrence relies heavily on these cases to argue the record compels a nexus finding here.
Romero v. Bondi (2025): Clarifies that the nexus inquiry asks why the applicant, as opposed to another person, was targeted “in the first place,” and that protected‑ground reasons can be “intertwined.” The majority quotes this formulation.
Exhaustion (Quintero v. Garland; Tepas v. Garland): Failure to raise a theory before the BIA can bar judicial review. The court applied this to limit reliance on earlier abuse by other men—but also held the government waived a new exhaustion argument raised only on the eve of oral argument (Mironescu v. Costner).
INS v. Ventura: When the agency has not yet passed on key issues, the proper course is to remand, not decide in the first instance. This drove the majority’s refusal to resolve nexus.

Legal Reasoning

1) CAT: Government Acquiescence Requires More Than “They Took a Report”

The IJ reasoned that because the police were “willing to take her report,” and because she left Honduras shortly after filing it, the government could not be said to acquiesce in any future torture. The BIA summarily affirmed. The Fourth Circuit found this reasoning truncated in two key respects:

Ignored testimony of non‑response: The petitioner testified she twice called police while being stalked and received no answer. Those episodes predated the park abduction attempt and could not be brushed aside simply because a later, formal report was taken.
Ignored structural evidence of impunity and gender‑based violence: The record contained reports that Honduras has among the highest femicide rates in the world, a roughly 95% impunity rate for sexual crimes, and entrenched patriarchal norms that diminish enforcement. Such evidence is directly relevant to whether officials would be willfully blind to or otherwise acquiesce in torture.

The majority reiterated that agencies must give more than boilerplate and must not “arbitrarily ignore” legally relevant evidence. It therefore vacated the CAT denial and directed the BIA to reconsider acquiescence in light of the full evidentiary record.

2) Asylum and Withholding: Country Conditions Can Contextualize Nexus

The BIA assumed credibility but affirmed the IJ’s alternative finding that the persecutor was merely “infatuated” and sought a romantic relationship, not that he targeted the petitioner “on account of” her PSG membership (Honduran women; unmarried mothers in Honduras). The Fourth Circuit did not decide nexus but held that the agency’s analysis impermissibly failed to engage with country‑conditions evidence demonstrating:

Endemic gender‑based violence and femicide in Honduras;
Entrenched patriarchal patterns depriving women of agency;
Law‑enforcement failures and impunity specific to sexual and domestic violence.

The majority explained that such evidence may “contextualize” the persecutor’s conduct as persecution “on account of” gender and social status (not a purely private romantic dispute), especially where the record includes gendered threats and slurs. While emphasizing that country‑conditions evidence alone does not establish persecution or nexus in every case, the court held it was legal error to ignore it when the evidence is salient and unrebutted.

3) Exhaustion and Waiver Dynamics

Unexhausted issues: The petitioner could not pivot on appeal to argue that abuse by other men (uncle and former partners) independently established nexus; she had not raised this theory to the BIA.
Government waiver: The government attempted, two days before argument, to assert a new exhaustion defense against the petitioner’s country‑conditions theory. The court held that this defense was waived for failure to adequately brief it, echoing the basic rule that appellees can waive arguments by non‑briefing (Mironescu v. Costner).

4) The Concurrence: Toward a Sex‑Based Inference and Mixed‑Motive Clarity

Judge Wynn’s separate concurrence would reverse the nexus holding outright. He would import an evidentiary inference from Title VII cases: when a man sexually harasses a woman, the harassment is presumptively “because of” sex absent contrary evidence (Oncale; Hopkins). Applying Fourth Circuit asylum precedent on intertwined motives (Alvarez Lagos; Hernandez‑Avalos; Chicas‑Machado; Perez Vasquez), the concurrence reasons that even if “romantic” interest is one motive, gender is at least one central reason why this victim, and not another person, was targeted. The concurrence also criticizes the BIA for failing to conduct a true mixed‑motive analysis.

The majority declined to adopt this inference in a holding and limited its disposition to the agency’s failure to consider the country‑conditions context, but the concurrence signals a future doctrinal direction for gender‑based claims in the circuit.

5) The Dissent: Individualized Proof and Deference to Agency Fact‑Finding

Judge Wilkinson dissented, warning that generalized country‑conditions reports cannot substitute for individualized proof and collecting authorities from multiple circuits emphasizing that point. He reads the record as supporting the IJ/BIA view that the harm stemmed from a spurned suitor, not gender, and that the limited police interactions (a report and two unanswered calls over roughly a week) do not show government acquiescence. He stresses deference under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), arguing that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the contrary.

The majority responded that it was not granting relief on country‑conditions evidence alone, but rather requiring the agency to perform its job: address salient, unrebutted, legally relevant evidence with reasoned analysis.

Impact

Procedural rigor for IJs and the BIA: Within the Fourth Circuit, immigration adjudicators must meaningfully engage with country‑specific evidence that bears on both nexus and government acquiescence. Cut‑and‑paste statements that the record has been “reviewed,” without specific engagement with probative evidence, risk vacatur.
Gender‑based claims and “private violence” frames: Agencies may not dismiss gender‑based persecution as merely “private romantic disputes” without addressing evidence that systemic norms and impunity render women especially vulnerable and that the perpetrator’s language and threats are gendered. Country‑conditions evidence can be decisive in contextualizing motive.
CAT acquiescence analysis elevated: IJ/BIA reasoning that officials “took a report” or that a petitioner departed too soon for police to act will not suffice where the record reflects non‑response to calls, high impunity, and structural failures. Adjudicators must confront whether these features amount to consent, willful blindness, or acquiescence.
Withholding tethered to asylum rationale: Where withholding is denied solely because asylum is denied, both rise and fall together. Vacatur of asylum on analytic grounds typically necessitates vacatur of withholding (Cordova).
Advocacy guidance:
- Build a robust, tailored country‑conditions record that links macro‑level patterns to the applicant’s micro‑level experience (e.g., gendered slurs/threats, police non‑response).
- Explicitly tie evidence to nexus and to government acquiescence standards; ask the agency to perform mixed‑motive analysis when multiple drivers are present.
- Preserve theories at every stage to avoid exhaustion problems; conversely, appellees must brief exhaustion defenses timely or risk waiver.
Doctrinal horizon: While not adopted as a holding, the concurrence’s Title VII‑style inference for male‑to‑female sexual harassment may influence future nexus analyses in gender‑based asylum cases. Expect parties to test, and the BIA to address, mixed‑motive frameworks more explicitly on remand.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group (PSG): One of the five protected asylum grounds. It typically requires a group defined by a common immutable characteristic, social distinction, and particularity. Here, the PSGs were “Honduran women” and “unmarried mothers in Honduras.” The Fourth Circuit did not decide whether these are cognizable; that may be addressed on remand if necessary.
Nexus (“on account of”): The protected ground must be “at least one central reason” why the persecutor targeted the applicant. Motives can be mixed; the protected reason need not be the only or dominant motive but must be more than incidental or tangential. Context matters—gendered slurs, threats, and societal norms can illuminate motive.
CAT “Acquiescence”: To obtain CAT relief, the applicant must show a likelihood of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence (including willful blindness) of a public official. Evidence that authorities ignore, consistently fail to respond to, or are structurally ineffective in addressing certain harms can be relevant to acquiescence.
Abuse of Discretion vs. Substantial Evidence: Even under deferential standards, the agency must articulate a reasoned basis and engage with key evidence. Disregarding legally significant, unrebutted evidence can be an abuse of discretion warranting vacatur, separate from whether the evidence compels a substantive finding.
Chenery/Nken Remand: Courts cannot affirm agency action on grounds the agency did not invoke. If the record suggests the agency has not considered vital issues or evidence, the proper course is remand for the agency to reconsider and explain.
Exhaustion and Waiver: Applicants must raise issues and theories before the BIA to preserve them for judicial review. Appellees (government) must timely brief defenses like exhaustion; raising new arguments at the last minute risks waiver.

Conclusion

Alfaro‑Zelaya establishes a clear procedural directive in the Fourth Circuit: immigration adjudicators must move beyond boilerplate and directly engage with country‑conditions evidence that bears on core elements of asylum, withholding, and CAT—particularly when claims involve gender‑based harm by private actors in countries with documented impunity and patriarchal norms. The opinion does not open the door to relief based on country conditions alone, nor does it resolve the nexus question here. Rather, it insists on a thorough, reasoned analysis that contextualizes individual harm within documented national patterns where relevant.

The concurrence signals a potential evolution toward recognizing a sex‑based inference and a more forthright mixed‑motive analysis in gender‑based persecution cases. The dissent cautions against relaxing individualized proof and urges deference to agency fact‑finding. For now, the binding takeaway is procedural but potent: when unrebutted, legally significant country documentation goes to the heart of nexus or acquiescence, the IJ and BIA must confront it. Failure to do so is an abuse of discretion that will not survive appellate review.