Reaffirming the Economic-Motive Exception: Cardenas-Zepeda v. Bondi and the Nexus Requirement in Gang-Extortion Asylum Claims

1. Introduction

Cardenas-Zepeda v. Bondi, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on 11 August 2025, is the latest in a line of cases addressing whether victims of gang-related extortion in Central America qualify for U.S. protection under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The petitioners—Honduran mother Dannia Yeselyn Cardenas-Zepeda and her minor son—sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after gang members threatened to harm them if Ms. Cardenas-Zepeda’s partner failed to pay a monthly “war tax” for his small honey business. Both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied relief, finding that the threats were economically motivated and lacked the required nexus to a protected ground. The Second Circuit affirmed in a non-precedential Summary Order.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Asylum/Withholding: The Court held substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the gang’s threats were motivated by financial gain, not by the petitioners’ membership in a “particular social group” (PSG). Accordingly, the nexus requirement (“one central reason”) was not met.
• Particular Social Group: The proposed PSGs—“current or former family members of small business owners indebted to Honduran gangs”—were assumed arguendo to be cognizable, but the Court found no evidence the threats were because of that status.
• CAT: The Court affirmed denial because petitioners did not show it is “more likely than not” they would be tortured with government acquiescence. Past harm consisted solely of unfulfilled threats.
• Disposition: Petition for review denied; all pending motions and stays vacated.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752 (2d Cir. 2022)
   • Clarified that when multiple motives exist, the protected ground must be a “central” motive, not “tangential or incidental.”
   • Cardenas-Zepeda adopts Garcia-Aranda's framework to hold that extortion for economic gain typically fails the nexus test.
2. Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022)
   • Found extortion by Ecuadorian gang driven by “incentives presented to ordinary criminals,” not persecution.
   • Used to analogize that economic extortion is insufficient for asylum without additional persecutory intent.
3. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007)
   • Coined the “incentives to ordinary criminals” language, steering courts away from converting generalized crime into persecution.
4. Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2006) – standard of review for nexus findings.
5. Mu Xiang Lin v. DOJ, 432 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005) – CAT requires individualized likelihood of torture.
6. Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007) – explains “acquiescence” under CAT.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Nexus Analysis
   • The INA demands that a protected ground be “at least one central reason” for the feared persecution (8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
   • Economic extortion—however violent—does not, without more, establish that motive. The Court agreed that the gang’s intent was monetary enrichment, not animus toward a protected class.
   • Family ties alone are insufficient unless the persecutor targets the family because of those ties rather than because the family is a convenient means to force payment.
2. Particular Social Group (PSG)
   • The Court sidestepped the cognizability of the proposed PSGs, focusing instead on nexus—reflecting the doctrine that failing any asylum element is dispositive.
3. CAT Reasoning
   • No presumption from past threats; no past torture occurred.
   • General country violence does not by itself satisfy “more likely than not.” The threat never materialized, and the partner remains unharmed in Honduras.
   • Insufficient evidence of government acquiescence: no reporting to police, no documented police inaction.
4. Standard of Review
   • Factual findings: substantial evidence (deferential). The Court required petitioners to show that “any reasonable adjudicator” would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion—an extremely demanding burden they could not meet.
   • Legal questions: de novo.

C. Potential Impact

• Reinforces Existing Doctrine, Yet Raises the Bar: Although not precedential, the Order fortifies a consistent Second Circuit theme: economic motives negate asylum claims absent a clear persecutory nexus. Applicants facing gang extortion must marshal evidence of discriminatory or anti-family intent beyond financial gain.
• Strategic Litigation Considerations: Counsel may increasingly emphasize evidence such as slurs, ideological statements, or differential treatment showing that the persecutor singles out the applicant because of a protected characteristic, rather than as an incidental by-product of extortion.
• PSG Formulations: Creative PSGs tied to family members’ business ownership continue to face skepticism. This decision signals that even carefully crafted PSG language will fail unless coupled with persuasive proof of motive.
• CAT Threshold Clarified: The case highlights that mere threats—even in a violent country—rarely reach CAT’s “more likely than not” benchmark unless accompanied by proof of systemic governmental impotence or collusion.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Nexus

The required causal link between the harm feared and a statutorily protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or PSG). It is not enough to experience harm; the harm must be inflicted because of one of these grounds.

Particular Social Group (PSG)

A group of individuals sharing a common immutable characteristic that is socially distinct and specifically defined. Courts assess whether society in the applicant’s country perceives the group as distinct.

One Central Reason Standard

Introduced by REAL ID Act of 2005. A protected ground must be more than incidental—although not exclusive—it must be a major reason motivating the persecutor.

Convention Against Torture (CAT)

An international treaty ensuring protection from return to a country where an individual is “more likely than not” to be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the government. Unlike asylum, CAT has no nexus or firm-resettlement requirements.

Government Acquiescence

For CAT, officials must know of the likely torture and deliberately fail to act. Mere inability, without knowledge or willful blindness, is insufficient.

5. Conclusion

Cardenas-Zepeda v. Bondi underscores that generalized gang violence and financially motivated extortion—however brutal—do not automatically translate into asylum eligibility. Under the Second Circuit’s jurisprudence, applicants must still cross the formidable nexus threshold, demonstrating that their protected characteristic is a central reason for the threat. The decision further crystallizes the high evidentiary bar for CAT protection: unfulfilled threats plus pervasive country violence seldom suffice.

Although rendered as a non-precedential summary order, Cardenas-Zepeda’s reasoning will undoubtedly echo in future immigration courts and appellate briefs. It cautions practitioners to differentiate between economic opportunism and targeted persecution, to develop robust evidence of government acquiescence for CAT claims, and to craft PSGs tethered to demonstrable persecutory motives rather than to the incidental consequences of crime.