Preservation of Social-Group Claims and Issue Waiver in Immigration Appeals: Guaman-Parades v. Bondi

Introduction

Guaman-Parades v. Bondi (2nd Cir. Apr. 1, 2025) involves an appeal by Ecuadorian nationals Victor Gustavo Guaman-Parades, his wife Gloria Soraya Alvarado-Malla, and their son Jeanpierre Nicolas Guaman-Alvarado. The family sought withholding of removal, asylum, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) after an Immigration Judge (IJ) in New York denied their applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and the Second Circuit denied the petition for review. Key issues include (1) whether the petitioners presented a cognizable “particular social group,” (2) nexus between that group and alleged persecution, (3) waiver of arguments not raised before the IJ, and (4) exhaustion of the CAT claim.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, applying substantial-evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal questions and the application of law to facts. It held:

The petitioners waived their family-based social-group claim by failing to press it before the BIA.
The petitioners did not preserve their newly-formulated social group of “witnesses who oppose criminal activity,” so the BIA correctly declined to address its cognizability or nexus.
There was no challenge to the dispositive nexus finding between the petitioners’ proposed groups and the harm feared, and thus asylum and withholding claims fail.
The CAT claim was unexhausted before the BIA and, in any event, lacked evidence of government acquiescence to 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) – establishing that this Court reviews BIA-modified IJ decisions under the substantial-evidence standard for factual findings.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) – confirming de novo review for legal questions and law-to-fact applications.
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) – setting forth the two-part test for “particular social group” claims: cognizability and centrality of the group membership to persecution.
Qituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022) – clarifying that the “one central reason” standard applies equally to asylum and withholding of removal.
Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114 (2d Cir. 2024) – articulating the exhaustion requirement for issues to be raised before the BIA.
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020) – explaining that CAT relief based on non-state actors (e.g., gangs) requires proof of government acquiescence.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in several steps:

Standard of Review: Factual findings by the IJ and BIA are conclusive unless no reasonable adjudicator could reach the same result. Legal questions and law-to-fact applications are reviewed de novo.
Elements of Asylum/Withholding. To qualify, petitioners must show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group), and that membership must be “one central reason” for the persecution.
Particular Social Group Analysis. Under Paloka, they must (a) define a legally cognizable group and (b) demonstrate nexus—that persecutors targeted them because of that membership.
Waiver of Issues. The BIA—and thus this Court—does not entertain claims or legal theories first raised on appeal unless preserved below. Petitioners forfeited their family-based group claim by not arguing it before the IJ or BIA, and they failed to defend the nexus finding on appeal.
CAT Relief. Requires proof that the government will acquiesce in torture. Petitioners did not pursue this claim before the BIA, and they offered no evidence of state acquiescence to gang violence.

Impact

This decision reinforces critical procedural and substantive rules in immigration litigation:

Issue Preservation. Litigants must present all theories, social-group definitions, and factual claims to the IJ and then to the BIA to preserve them for judicial review.
Strict Nexus Requirement. Asylum and withholding applicants must clearly link the persecutor’s motive to a protected characteristic or group membership.
Limits of Summary Orders. Even non-precedential summary orders carry binding standards regarding exhaustion and waiver.
Heightened CAT Standard. Claims based on non-state torture actors are untenable without evidence of state acquiescence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial-Evidence Review: Courts defer to agency fact-finding unless no reasonable decision-maker could agree.
De novo Review: Courts re-evaluate legal issues from scratch, without deferring to the agency.
Particular Social Group (PSG): A set of persons defined by shared immutable characteristics (e.g., gender, occupation) or fundamental traits (e.g., resistance to criminal gangs). PSG claims must show the group is socially distinct and that members are targeted for that shared trait.
Nexus: The connection between the harm feared and the immigrant’s protected status.
Waiver/Exhaustion: Failure to raise an issue before the BIA typically bars later review in federal court.

Conclusion

Guaman-Parades v. Bondi underscores the necessity of fully developing all legal theories and factual arguments at each stage of immigration proceedings. The decision reaffirms that social-group claims require both legal cognizability and a clear nexus to the persecution feared, and that CAT relief demands proof of state involvement in torture. For practitioners and petitioners alike, the case serves as a cautionary tale: procedural missteps—particularly failure to preserve issues—can be fatal to substantive claims, regardless of the underlying merits.