Re-affirming the “Central Reason” Nexus Standard in Mixed-Motive Asylum Cases:
A Commentary on Figueroa-Serrano v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

In Figueroa-Serrano v. Bondi, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied an El Salvadoran petitioner’s application for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Melvin Enrique Figueroa-Serrano contended that Salvadoran gang members persecuted him because of his Christian faith after he refused to join their ranks. The crucial question was whether the alleged persecution occurred “on account of” a statutorily protected ground—religion, political opinion, nationality, race, or membership in a particular social group.

The case is procedurally packaged as a “summary order,” meaning it lacks formal precedential weight under Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1.1. Nevertheless, it provides a detailed and instructive application of the modern “mixed-motive” nexus test, freshly articulated in Shuqiang Tian v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 284 (2d Cir. 2025). This commentary dissects the decision, highlights its jurisprudential value, and explains its import for future asylum litigation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The court, per a panel consisting of Judges Sullivan, Nardini, and Merriam, held:

Nexus Failure: The petitioner failed to prove that his religion (or any other protected ground) was “at least one central reason” for the gang’s threats. The evidence suggested the gang was motivated solely by its interest in recruitment and expanding criminal activity.
Substantial Evidence Standard: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), the agency’s factual findings are binding unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion. The court found more than adequate support for the agency’s nexus finding.
Exhaustion Doctrine: Arguments premised on political opinion, social-group membership, youth, conscientious objection, or family membership were barred because they were not raised before the BIA, citing Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114 (2d Cir. 2024).
Government Inability Argument Unnecessary: Because the nexus element failed, the court declined to reach whether the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control gangs (INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)).
Outcome: Petition for review DENIED; all pending motions and applications dismissed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Shuqiang Tian v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 284 (2d Cir. 2025)
— Clarified the “mixed-motive” standard: a protected ground must be “at least one central reason” for persecution, not merely incidental.
Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752 (2d Cir. 2022)
— Restated the statutory nexus requirement for asylum and withholding.
Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021)
— Authorized circuit courts to review both IJ and BIA decisions “for completeness” when consistent.
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009)
— Drew the line between substantial-evidence review for facts and de novo review for law.
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008)
— Recognized that a petitioner’s failure to supply evidence can itself satisfy the “substantial evidence” threshold for denying relief.
Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114 (2d Cir. 2024)
— Reaffirmed the strict exhaustion requirement for issues not raised to the BIA.
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
— Agencies need not decide unnecessary issues once a dispositive ground has been identified.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Second Circuit followed a two-step analytical path:

Standard-of-Review Framing – The court reiterated that it defers to the agency on factual findings unless a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to disagree (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Legal questions or mixed issues earn de novo scrutiny.
Application of the Mixed-Motive Nexus Test – Under Tian, even if an applicant identifies multiple motives behind the persecutor’s conduct, a protected ground must be a “central” reason. The court found:
- Gangs threatened the petitioner solely to coerce recruitment.
- No evidence the gang referenced religion, political opinion, or social-group status.
- The petitioner’s friends—non-Christians—were targeted similarly, indicating a non-protected motive.
Thus, the “central reason” element collapsed.

The court also addressed (and rejected) several procedural challenges:

Misapplication Claim: The petitioner asserted that the agency required the gang to “interview” him about religion. The court clarified that the agency’s references to the absence of religious remarks merely underscored the evidentiary void—it was not an attempt to raise the burden.
Additional Protected Grounds: Claims of “imputed political opinion,” “youth,” or “family membership” were deemed unexhausted under Punin.
State-Protection Argument: Because nexus failed, the agency properly skipped whether El Salvador could or would protect the petitioner.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

Although formally non-precedential, the decision is practically influential because:

Operationalizes Tian: It immediately puts the 2025 refinement of mixed-motive nexus into action, giving immigration practitioners a clear illustration of what does not meet the “central reason” bar.
High Evidentiary Demands: Applicants alleging persecution by criminal gangs must produce direct or circumstantial evidence linking threats to a protected ground—mere refusal to join a gang is not enough.
Strategic Guidance on Exhaustion: Advocates are reminded that every protected-ground theory must be squarely raised before the IJ and BIA or be forfeited in the court of appeals.
Judicial Economy Cues: By leaning on Bagamasbad, the court signals it will not second-guess agency decisions that rest on a dispositive element, promoting efficient adjudication.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Nexus: The causal link between persecution and a protected ground. Think of it as asking, “Why is the persecutor targeting the applicant?”
“Central Reason” Test: In mixed-motive cases, a protected ground must be more than incidental; it must be an important—not necessarily exclusive—reason for the harm.
Mixed-Motive: When the persecutor acts for multiple reasons (e.g., money + religion). The court’s inquiry is whether at least one protected ground is central.
Substantial Evidence Review: A deferential standard: The reviewing court asks only whether any reasonable fact-finder could agree with the agency, not whether the court would have decided differently.
Exhaustion Requirement: Litigants must give the agency the first chance to rule on every argument; failing to do so bars appellate review.
Summary Order: A non-precedential disposition that still guides bar and bench informally; may be cited under FRAP 32.1 with the “SUMMARY ORDER” notation.

5. Conclusion

Figueroa-Serrano v. Bondi exemplifies the Second Circuit’s unwavering insistence on a robust nexus showing in asylum and withholding claims. Leveraging the fresh precedent in Shuqiang Tian, the court underscores that:

Criminal intent alone—such as gang recruitment—does not morph into persecution “on account of” religion or another protected ground unless corroborated by evidence.
The burden of proof remains squarely on the applicant; silence in the record props up the agency’s ruling under the substantial-evidence lens.
Strategic litigation requires early and explicit articulation of each protected-ground theory before the BIA to preserve issues for judicial review.

While not precedential, the decision offers sharp guidance for practitioners charting the perilous terrain of gang-related asylum claims and sets a persuasive template for applying the “central reason” standard across mixed-motive cases nationwide.

Re-affirming the “Central Reason” Nexus Standard in Mixed-Motive Asylum Cases: A Commentary on Figueroa-Serrano v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025)