No Placeholders on Form I-589: Second Circuit Upholds Abandonment for Lack of “Specific Substantive Answers,” Highlights Withholding/CAT Standards, and Flags Counsel Conduct

Introduction

In Ortega-Garcia v. Bondi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition for review from two Ecuadorian nationals—a mother (Maria Flor Ortega‑Garcia) and her minor son—whose applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection were deemed abandoned by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Although issued as a nonprecedential summary order, the decision is notable for its forthright endorsement of the BIA’s recent precedential decision in Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑ (2025) requiring “specific substantive answers” on Form I‑589, its reiteration of well-established standards governing withholding of removal and CAT claims, and its unusual referral of the matter to the Court’s Grievance Panel due to concerns about counsel’s performance.

Key issues presented included: whether the IJ and BIA properly treated an incomplete Form I‑589 as abandoned; whether the denial of a late continuance motion and the use of an accelerated docket violated due process; and whether the petitioner preserved (and adequately developed) arguments regarding the nexus standard for withholding and the state-involvement requirement under the Convention Against Torture regulations.

Panel: Judges Denny Chin, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., and Eunice C. Lee. Disposition: Petition for review denied.

Note on precedential status: As a summary order, this disposition does not have precedential effect in the Second Circuit. Nonetheless, it provides a clear application of existing statutes, regulations, and precedents—including the BIA’s recent precedential ruling in Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑—and furnishes practical guidance for immigration practitioners.

Summary of the Judgment

The court affirmed the agency’s decision deeming the asylum, withholding, and CAT application “abandoned” under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(c)(3) because the Form I‑589 lacked “specific substantive answers.” The form contained a placeholder statement that a detailed narrative would be provided later and did not substantively identify the facts underlying the claim, beyond checking “race” as a protected ground.
The petitioner’s motion for a continuance was untimely; on petition for review, she did not meaningfully challenge the denial. The continuance issue was therefore abandoned on appeal.
Any due process challenge premised on the accelerated docket was inadequately developed and, in any event, failed because petitioner neither showed deprivation of a fair opportunity to present claims nor cognizable prejudice.
Although unnecessary to the disposition, the court reiterated two points often mishandled in the briefing it has seen from petitioner’s counsel: (a) the “one central reason” nexus standard applies to withholding of removal (Quituizaca v. Garland); and (b) CAT relief requires government involvement or acquiescence (8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)).
The court referred the matter to its Grievance Panel and directed counsel to inform the client about the process and standards for a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel (Lozada; Paucar v. Garland), including relevant statutory and regulatory provisions.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(c)(3): Defines a complete asylum application and mandates that incomplete applications “shall” be deemed abandoned and the opportunity to file “waived.” The order applies this rule strictly.
Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑, 29 I. & N. Dec. 13 (B.I.A. 2025): A precedential BIA decision clarifying that each required question on Form I‑589 must have a “specific substantive answer,” not placeholders. The Second Circuit’s order explicitly relies on C‑A‑R‑R‑’s articulation.
Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006): The court considers both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions when reviewing.
Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013): Legal conclusions reviewed de novo.
Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2008): IJ’s management of deadlines and continuances reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005): Issues not properly raised and developed are considered abandoned on appeal.
Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2007); Garcia‑Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008): Due process requires a full and fair opportunity and a showing of cognizable prejudice attributable to the challenged process.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i): “One central reason” nexus standard for asylum; by Second Circuit precedent, also applicable to withholding.
Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022): Confirms “one central reason” applies to withholding of removal.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1): CAT requires torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or person acting in an official capacity.
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c): Statutory and regulatory framework for motions to reopen.
Paucar v. Garland, 84 F.4th 71 (2d Cir. 2023); Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988): Standards and procedural requirements for reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Legal Reasoning

Completeness of the I‑589 under § 1208.3(c)(3) and Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑. The IJ and BIA deemed the application abandoned because it lacked substantive answers to the core questions. The form merely asserted past “harm, mistreatment and threats” and promised details later, and it checked “race” as the protected ground without factual support. The Second Circuit agreed that a placeholder narrative does not meet the completeness requirement as clarified in Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑. The regulation’s “shall” language is mandatory: an incomplete application results in abandonment and waiver within those proceedings.
Continuance and docket management. The motion for continuance was filed after evidence deadlines had passed. On review, petitioner did not meaningfully challenge the denial, nor did she engage the “good cause” standard in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. The court treated the issue as abandoned on appeal, applying Debique and Yueqing Zhang.
Due process claim. The petition referenced difficulties posed by an accelerated docket, but any due process theory was too abbreviated to be preserved. In any event, petitioner failed to show that deadlines prevented her from including a basic factual claim in the I‑589, from providing her own statement, or from filing a timely continuance motion. Absent both deprivation of a fair opportunity and cognizable prejudice, the due process claim fails under Burger and Garcia‑Villeda.
Withholding and CAT clarifications (obiter discussion). Though not necessary to decide the case, the court reiterated two substantive standards:
- Withholding nexus: “one central reason” applies (Quituizaca), contrary to petitioner’s briefing.
- CAT: state action or acquiescence is required by regulation (8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)), and arguments to the contrary were underdeveloped.
Professional responsibility and remedial guidance. The court forwarded the order to its Grievance Panel and directed counsel to inform the client about her option to file a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance, citing Lozada and Paucar. This is a notable step that underscores the court’s concerns about counsel’s performance and ensures the client is informed of potential remedies.

Impact and Implications

Even though the order is nonprecedential, its practical effects are substantial:

Tightened adherence to I‑589 completeness. Together with the BIA’s precedential Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑, this order signals that IJs and the BIA may rigorously enforce § 1208.3(c)(3). Placeholders such as “narrative to follow” risk abandonment—even where the form is timely filed. Practitioners must provide at least the essential factual narrative supporting fear or past persecution in the form itself.
Accelerated dockets do not excuse incompleteness or missed deadlines. The court’s analysis underscores that speed alone does not equal a due process violation. Litigants must show both unfairness and prejudice. Timely, well-supported continuance motions are essential, and any denials must be properly preserved and argued on appeal.
Briefing quality matters; preservation is critical. The court’s reliance on abandonment doctrines (Debique; Yueqing Zhang) is a reminder that undeveloped or perfunctory arguments will not be considered. Appellate counsel must identify legal standards, apply them to the record, and articulate prejudice where due process is invoked.
Substantive standards reaffirmed.
- Withholding: Practitioners should frame nexus under the “one central reason” test, not a lower standard.
- CAT: Arguments must engage the “state action or acquiescence” requirement; pointing only to private harm or general unwillingness/ineffectiveness of police is usually insufficient without evidence of consent, acquiescence, or willful blindness by officials.
Professional responsibility oversight. The referral to the Grievance Panel and instruction regarding ineffective-assistance reopening is a rare but clear message: inadequate preparation and briefing can jeopardize clients’ cases and trigger oversight.
Pathways for remediation remain. Despite abandonment, a motion to reopen—particularly on ineffective assistance grounds—can provide a vehicle to re-present a properly supported claim, provided Lozada’s procedural requirements and Paucar’s standards are met.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abandonment of an application (8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(c)(3)). An asylum application is “incomplete” if any required question lacks a real answer. If incomplete, the IJ must deem it “abandoned,” and the applicant is treated as having waived the opportunity to file such an application in that proceeding. Filing the form on time is not enough; it must contain a substantive narrative of the claim.
“Specific substantive answers.” Per Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑, answers must convey factual content—who harmed you, why, when, how, and why you fear future harm. Saying “details will be added later,” or offering only a checked box for a protected ground, does not suffice.
Good cause for a continuance (8 C.F.R. § 1003.29). The IJ may continue proceedings for “good cause,” which requires timely, supported reasons (e.g., concrete steps taken to obtain evidence, specific expected timeframe, and relevance). Late motions without specifics are often denied.
Preservation and abandonment on appeal. Arguments must be developed in the brief—identify the governing legal standard, apply it to the facts, and cite the record. Underdeveloped or conclusory points are treated as abandoned and will not be considered.
Due process in removal proceedings. To prevail, a noncitizen must show they lacked a “full and fair opportunity” to present claims and that the alleged error caused actual prejudice (i.e., could have affected the outcome).
Withholding of removal: “one central reason.” The protected ground (e.g., race, political opinion) must be one central reason for the persecution—more than incidental or tangential.
CAT: State involvement or acquiescence. The torture must be by or with the consent or acquiescence (including willful blindness) of public officials. Harm only by private actors, without government involvement, will not meet CAT’s threshold.
Motion to reopen for ineffective assistance (Lozada; Paucar). To reopen based on attorney error, an applicant typically must: notify prior counsel and give an opportunity to respond; file a complaint or explain why not; present an affidavit detailing the agreement, errors, and prejudice; and show that counsel’s deficiencies likely affected the outcome.

Practice Pointers

Complete Form I‑589 with a coherent core narrative at the outset. Do not rely on future supplements to supply the entire factual basis.
If evidence from abroad is delayed, file a timely, detailed continuance motion explaining steps taken, expected timing, and materiality; preserve the issue for appeal by squarely challenging any denial.
For withholding claims, argue nexus under the “one central reason” standard; supply testimony and corroboration reflecting persecutor motive.
For CAT, collect evidence of official involvement, consent, or willful blindness, such as ignored complaints, complicity, or systemic corruption.
On appeal, avoid perfunctory assertions. Develop each argument with legal standards, record citations, and a prejudice analysis when due process is raised.
If prior counsel’s errors compromised the case, promptly assess a motion to reopen under Lozada/Paucar, noting the strict timelines in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

Conclusion

Ortega‑Garcia reinforces a straightforward but consequential proposition: an asylum application must be complete when filed, with “specific substantive answers,” and placeholder statements will trigger abandonment under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(c)(3). The order also underscores the importance of timely, well-supported continuance requests; the necessity of preserving and developing arguments on appeal; and the correct substantive standards for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Although nonprecedential, the court’s application of Matter of C‑A‑R‑R‑ and its admonitions regarding counsel’s briefing will likely influence agency practice and appellate advocacy within the Second Circuit. The referral to the Grievance Panel and the direction to advise the client about reopening based on ineffective assistance demonstrate the judiciary’s expectation of competent representation and provide a roadmap for remedial action where counsel performance has fallen short.