Reaffirming the One-Central-Reason Nexus in Asylum Claims: Losada-Velin v. Bondi

Introduction

In Losada-Velin v. Bondi, Nos. 23-6269 (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2025), the Second Circuit reviewed a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summary order denying petitioner Olga Livia Losada-Velin’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Losada-Velin, a dual national of Ecuador and Spain, alleged that she and her family suffered—or would suffer—persecution in Ecuador on account of race, nationality, membership in her deceased father’s political circle, and imputed political opinion. The central legal issue was whether the record contained sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to tie the harm she experienced (or feared) to a protected ground—i.e., the “one central reason” requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review, upholding the BIA’s affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision. Applying the substantial‐evidence standard to fact‐finding, the panel concluded that:

• Losada-Velin’s account of a 2016 sexual assault by three indigenous men lacked any indication that the attackers were motivated by her race, nationality, political opinion, or family ties;
• Her speculative inference that her husband’s 2015 motorcycle crash was politically or racially motivated was unsupported by firsthand testimony or corroborating evidence;
• Threatening phone calls and verbal harassment, unaccompanied by any actual violence tied to a protected ground, constituted non‐persecutory “harassment” rather than persecution; and
• She waived or abandoned her CAT claim by failing to brief it beyond a conclusory assertion.

As a result, the petition for review was denied in full, and all stays and pending motions were vacated.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision rests on a line of binding authorities that clarify the requirements for asylum and withholding claims:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i): Establishing that persecution must occur “on account of” race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
• INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992): Requiring direct or circumstantial evidence of the persecutor’s motive.
• Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010): Defining the “sufficiently strong nexus” test.
• Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1999): Holding that generalized criminal violence, unconnected to a protected ground, does not constitute persecution.
• Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569 (2d Cir. 2021): Reinforcing the substantial‐evidence review of nexus determinations.
• Yuequing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005): Requiring an applicant to tie persecutory acts to a protected ground through evidence in the record.
• KC v. Garland, 108 F.4th 130 (2d Cir. 2024): Explaining that unfulfilled threats alone, absent additional aggravating factors, do not amount to past persecution.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two‐step framework:

1. Standard of Review: It treated factual findings under the “substantial evidence” standard (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B))—meaning they stand unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Legal questions and mixed questions of law are reviewed de novo.
2. One-Central-Reason Nexus: Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b), an asylum applicant must show that a protected characteristic was “at least one central reason” for persecution. Drawing on Elias-Zacarias and Castro, the court emphasized that the applicant must connect the persecutor’s views or motives—through statements, patterns of conduct, or reliable documentary evidence—to the harm suffered or feared.

Losada-Velin’s evidentiary gaps were fatal: the sexual assault perpetrator made no reference to her class, race, or politics; no witness tied the motorcycle crash to a protected motive; and the threatening calls, which pre‐dated her alleged harms and never escalated to violence against her, were too attenuated to satisfy the nexus requirement.

Impact on Future Cases

Although summary orders in this court do not carry precedential effect under Local Rule 32.1.1, Losada-Velin serves as persuasive guidance:

• It underscores the strict insistence on contemporaneous evidence tying each incident of harm to a protected ground;
• It signals that applicants cannot rely solely on generalized crime conditions or speculative links to political activity;
• It reminds practitioners that unfulfilled threats, without aggravating circumstances, will generally be deemed non‐persecutory;
• It highlights the need for clear briefing on CAT claims lest they be deemed abandoned.

Immigration judges and the BIA will likely reference this decision when evaluating the sufficiency of nexus and the adequacy of applicant briefing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Asylum vs. Withholding of Removal: Asylum is discretionary and requires an applicant to demonstrate a “well‐founded fear” of persecution. Withholding is mandatory if the applicant shows a “clear probability” of persecution on a protected ground.
• One-Central-Reason Standard: Even if there are multiple motives for persecutory acts, the applicant must show that at least one protected ground was a central motivating factor.
• Substantial Evidence vs. De Novo Review: Factual findings by the agency are upheld if reasonable, whereas legal conclusions are reviewed from scratch.
• CAT Standard: Relief under the Convention Against Torture requires a showing that it is “more likely than not” the applicant would be tortured and that government officials would acquiesce.

Conclusion

Losada-Velin v. Bondi reaffirms the Second Circuit’s rigorous approach to the nexus requirement in asylum and withholding claims. It clarifies that applicants must produce concrete, direct, or circumstantial evidence linking each alleged harm to a protected ground; mere speculation, unfulfilled threats, or untethered incidents will not suffice. Practitioners should take heed of the court’s insistence on clear, well‐supported briefing—both on nexus and on CAT issues—to avoid abandonment and denial.