Reaffirming the "One Central Reason" Standard and Distinct Acquiescence Test Under the CAT: Valverde Lopez v. Bondi

Introduction

Valverde Lopez v. Bondi is a 2025 summary order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petitioners Sandra Genoveva Valverde Lopez and her daughter Jamileth Victoria Punina Valverde, citizens of Ecuador, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision that denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The petitioners claimed they faced persecution by criminal gangs in Ecuador due to their anti‐gang stance and status as unmarried mothers. They also asserted that local police either participated in or acquiesced to the gangs’ abuses. The Second Circuit, in a non‐precedential summary order, denied the petition for review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the BIA’s and the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decisions on three principal grounds:

Asylum and Withholding of Removal: Petitioners failed to challenge dispositive bases for denial (abandoned political opinion claim; proposed particular social groups deemed non-cognizable; failure to exhaust new PSG theory).
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief: The agency applied the correct legal standard for CAT—requiring public‐official acquiescence rather than the “unable or unwilling” framework used in asylum/withholding contexts—and found no evidence that Ecuadorian authorities would knowingly allow or facilitate torture.
Procedural Deficiencies: Petitioners’ appellate briefs lacked adequate record citations and legal analysis, prompting referral to the Court’s Grievance Panel for possible counsel sanctions.

Consequently, the petition for review was denied in full, all outstanding motions were denied, any stays were vacated, and the case was referred to the Grievance Panel under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005): Clarifies that a reviewing court looks to the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s opinion.
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009): Establishes standards of review—de novo for legal questions, substantial evidence for factual findings.
Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022): Confirms that the “one central reason” causation standard applies to both asylum and withholding of removal.
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014): Defines the three-part test for a cognizable particular social group (PSG): immutable characteristic, particularity, social distinction.
Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023): Emphasizes that failure to brief an issue adequately constitutes abandonment.
Punin v. Garland, 108 F.4th 114 (2d Cir. 2024): Reinforces the “exhaustion” requirement for arguments before the BIA.
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020): Discusses the distinction between the “unable or unwilling” standard for asylum/withholding and the separate acquiescence standard for CAT.
Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2021): Confirms courts have not merged the asylum/withholding “unable-or-unwilling” prong into the CAT acquiescence analysis.
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2014): Holds that police awareness of gang crime without prosecution does not alone establish acquiescence in torture.
Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569 (2d Cir. 2021): Explains that under substantial-evidence review, courts do not reweigh facts but ask if record evidence compels a different outcome.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. “One Central Reason” Standard: To obtain asylum or withholding, an applicant must show that one of the five protected grounds (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or PSG membership) was or will be “at least one central reason” for persecution. The court reaffirmed that this burden applies equally to asylum and withholding (Quituizaca).

b. Abandonment & Exhaustion: Petitioners dropped their political opinion claim by omission (Debique). They also failed to defend the IJ’s holding that their proposed PSG (unmarried mothers resisting gangs; small business owners) lacked the three required features (Paloka) and did not exhaust a newly minted “witnesses” PSG before the BIA (Punin).

c. CAT Acquiescence Test: The agency correctly applied 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a), which defines torture as intentional infliction of severe pain “by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.” “Acquiescence” requires both awareness and a breach of protective duty. The court rejected the suggestion that the “unable or unwilling” formulation from asylum/withholding contexts governs CAT (Scarlett; Singh).

d. Application to Facts: Petitioners’ only proffered police interaction—being told to produce more evidence in 2020—did not compel a finding of government awareness plus breach sufficient for CAT. Their generalized assertion that the government “exacerbated” the problem, unsupported by record citations, fell short under substantial-evidence review (Quintanilla-Mejia; Garcia-Milian).

3. Impact

Asylum/Withholding Claims: Reinforces that plaintiffs must brief every theory and must ground their proposed PSGs in the tri-part Paloka test. Broad or conclusory statements will be deemed abandoned.
CAT Relief: Clarifies that courts will not import the “unable or unwilling” analysis into the CAT context. Applicants must show specific official knowledge and refusal to act.
Practice Standards: Highlights the importance of detailed record citations and developed legal argumentation. Appellate counsel risk referral to grievance panels if briefs fail to meet Rule 28.
Procedural Vigilance: Confirms that non-precedential summary orders can still shape appellate practice on exhaustion, abandonment, and proper framing of CAT claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“One Central Reason” Standard: The government must target you at least partly because of who you are (e.g., your group membership or beliefs). It is not enough that persecution happens coincidentally; your protected trait must be a driving force.

Particular Social Group (PSG): A group of people who (1) share a characteristic they cannot change (immutable), (2) are clearly defined (“particularity”), and (3) are recognized by their society as a distinct class.

Acquiescence under the CAT: Unlike asylum, where a country “unable or unwilling” to control private persecutors suffices, torture protection demands proof that a public official knew about the torture risk and consciously chose not to prevent it.

Substantial-Evidence Review: Courts look at the whole record and ask if any reasonable adjudicator could reach the same conclusion. They do not reweigh or reconsider evidence absent compelling proof to the contrary.

Conclusion

Valverde Lopez v. Bondi underscores three enduring lessons in immigration law practice. First, applicants for asylum and withholding must carry the “one central reason” burden with respect to a recognized protected ground, fully brief each claim, and exhaust all theories before the agency. Second, CAT relief stands on a distinct “acquiescence” framework requiring proof of government knowledge and refusal to act, not merely an inability or unwillingness to police private actors. Third, appellate advocacy demands precise record citations and robust analysis; failure to meet Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28’s standards can trigger professional referrals.

Although this summary order is not binding precedent, it will guide practitioners in shaping claims, selecting and defining particular social groups, and crafting CAT arguments. It also serves as a reminder that even in summary dispositions, careful attention to procedural and substantive requirements remains paramount.