Reaffirming the Objective-Nexus Requirement and the Preservation Doctrine in Family-Association Asylum Claims: Commentary on Olivier St. Simon v. U.S. Attorney General

Introduction

On 29 July 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, denied the petition for review filed by Haitian citizen Olivier St. Simon. Mr. St. Simon sought reversal of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision that had upheld an immigration judge’s denial of three forms of protection:

• Asylum
• Withholding of removal
• Relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

The core issues revolved around whether (1) persecution based on his father’s former employment with the United Nations and alleged anti-Pitit Dessalines political opinion satisfied the nexus requirement for asylum/withholding, (2) a “pattern or practice” of persecution existed against such family members, and (3) repatriated Haitians are routinely tortured, thus warranting CAT relief.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit (Judges Jordan, Luck, and Brasher) held:

1. No objectively reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution on any protected ground was shown.
2. Pattern-or-practice argument was deemed unpreserved because it was not substantively developed before the immigration judge or the BIA.
3. CAT claim failed because the petitioner did not demonstrate a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of public officials, and the BIA provided reasoned consideration of all material arguments, including those related to repatriation.
4. Petition for review denied.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The panel anchored its decision in a series of Eleventh Circuit cases that collectively clarify the standards for asylum, withholding, and CAT claims:

• Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 998 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2021)
  Reiterates the difference between the “well-founded fear” (asylum) and “more likely than not” (withholding) standards, and that failure to meet the lesser asylum standard forecloses withholding.
• Sama v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 887 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2018)
  Articulates the requirement that the fear of persecution must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable, with a demonstrable nexus to a protected ground.
• Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006)
  Holds that the safety of similarly situated family members living in the country of origin can undercut claims of future persecution.
• Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005)
  Clarifies that generalized violence and crime, without a protected-ground nexus, do not constitute persecution.
• Farah v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 12 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2021)
  Describes the “reasoned consideration” standard for BIA decisions—critical to evaluating CAT determinations.
• Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2009)
  Observes the overlap in evidence between asylum/withholding and CAT claims.
• Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010)
  Establishes the “substantial evidence” standard for factual review.

By relying on this body of precedent, the panel emphasized continuity in Eleventh Circuit asylum jurisprudence: the applicant must supply contemporaneous, particularized evidence tying the anticipated harm to a statutorily protected ground, and must preserve all arguments at each administrative level.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Objective Nexus & Specificity

Even assuming Mr. St. Simon’s proposed protected grounds (family membership and imputed political opinion) were cognizable, the Court found the record bereft of specific, detailed facts showing that Haitian actors would currently recognize him, link him to his father’s past UN employment, or persecute him on that basis nearly a decade later. Evidence that:

• His father’s other relatives still live unharmed in Haiti;
• The father himself characterized some attacks as non-personal;
• The feared harm centered on generalized gang violence;

collectively defeated the required nexus.

b. Preservation of the Pattern-or-Practice Claim

Although counsel referenced a “pattern or practice” in passing before both the IJ and the BIA, they offered neither legal argument nor supporting evidence. Under Eleventh Circuit doctrine (see Lapaix and Sepulveda), undeveloped claims are deemed abandoned. Consequently, the panel held that the BIA did not act arbitrarily in refusing sua sponte to develop a theory the applicant had not meaningfully advanced. This underscores an important procedural rule: immigration claimants must concretely articulate and support every theory at the earliest possible stage.

c. CAT & Reasoned Consideration

For CAT relief, the inquiry centers on likely torture by or with state acquiescence. Mr. St. Simon’s argument—that repatriated Haitians face kidnappings and extortion—was framed largely as the risk of private criminal harm. The BIA acknowledged the argument, conducted a “thorough review,” and, consistent with Farah, was not obligated to cite every line of evidence. Because the applicant’s theory lacked the element of official involvement or acquiescence, the Court found the BIA’s reasoning adequate and its ultimate conclusion supported by substantial evidence.

3. Impact of the Judgment

• Heightened Emphasis on Record Development
  Practitioners must provide particularized evidence and contemporaneous documentation tying family-association claims to current, individualized threats.
• Preservation Doctrine Reinforced
  The ruling reaffirmed that merely invoking a concept (e.g., “pattern or practice”) without accompanying legal and factual support does not preserve the issue for appellate review.
• Repatriated Citizen Argument Limited
  The Court’s treatment signals that harms befalling returnees that are attributable to generalized criminality—rather than state action—will rarely satisfy CAT.
• Family Membership as a Particular Social Group (“PSG”) Remains Narrowly Construed
  While immediate family can qualify as a PSG, this case illustrates that applicants still must demonstrate current targetability and an objective nexus; historical persecution of a relative is not enough.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Particular Social Group (PSG)
  A category of people who share a common, immutable characteristic (e.g., family), are socially distinct in the relevant society, and are defined with particularity.
• Nexus Requirement
  The causal link between the harm feared and one of the five protected grounds (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or PSG).
• Pattern or Practice of Persecution
  Even if the applicant cannot prove he will be singled out, asylum may still be granted if there is widespread, systematic persecution of a group the applicant belongs to. However, the applicant must produce reliable, country-specific evidence to support the claim.
• Substantial Evidence Standard
  A highly deferential form of review: the appellate court must uphold agency fact-findings unless the record compels a contrary result.
• Reasoned Consideration
  The BIA must show that it actually considered the issues raised; it need not write an extensive opinion, but must avoid mischaracterizing evidence or ignoring key arguments.

Conclusion

Although unpublished and therefore not precedential, Olivier St. Simon v. U.S. Attorney General offers practitioners and applicants a cautionary roadmap: (1) furnish current, concrete evidence linking the feared harm to a protected ground; (2) preserve every argument with legal authority and factual support at each adjudicatory level; and (3) remember that generalized criminal violence—even when acute—rarely satisfies asylum, withholding, or CAT standards without official complicity or a protected-ground nexus. In reaffirming these principles, the Eleventh Circuit continues to align with its existing asylum jurisprudence, reinforcing procedural rigor and evidentiary specificity in immigration proceedings.