Refusal to Pay Extortion Demands by Criminal Gangs Does Not Establish Nexus to a Protected Ground for Asylum

Introduction

Quichimbo-Caracundo v. Bondi is a summary order issued on April 24, 2025, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case arose from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying an asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim brought by Martha Cecilia Quichimbo-Caracundo, an Ecuadorian national, as well as her husband and three minor children (derivative beneficiaries). The petitioners argued that criminal gangs in Ecuador persecuted them—first by threatening and attacking their small business—and that this persecution was motivated by a protected characteristic (membership in a particular social group of “indebted small business owners”) or by an imputed political opinion (anti-gang, anti-corruption stance). They also sought CAT protection. The Second Circuit denied the petition for review, upholding the agency’s findings on nexus, political opinion, and torture standards.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit, in a non-precedential summary order, concluded that:

There was substantial evidence that Quichimbo-Caracundo failed to establish a nexus between the gang’s extortion demands and any protected ground under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum) and 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding of removal).
The proffered particular social group—“small business owners indebted to private creditors”—was not shown to be the reason the gangs targeted her. The attacks were motivated by the gangs’ desire for money, not animus toward a discrete group.
The claim of an imputed political opinion (opposition to gangs or corruption) failed because the opposition did not transcend self-protection or show a broader political dimension.
The CAT claim was abandoned in petitioner’s brief and, in any event, lacked evidence that it was “more likely than not” that she would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Ecuadorian government.
Therefore, the petition for review was denied in all respects, and removal proceedings were set to continue.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Melgar de Torres v. Reno (191 F.3d 307, 313–14): General criminal violence or “random violence” cannot constitute persecution on a protected ground.
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales (426 F.3d 540, 545): To qualify for asylum or withholding, an applicant must show the persecutor’s motive is at least one central reason for harm.
In re Acosta (19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 222): Defines persecution as punishment or harm inflicted because of a protected belief or characteristic.
Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales (464 F.3d 276, 282): Reviews nexus determinations under the substantial evidence standard.
Garcia-Aranda v. Garland (53 F.4th 752, 758): Perceived ability to pay extortion is not a protected ground.
Quituizaca v. Garland (52 F.4th 103, 114–16): Affirms that criminal incentives, not persecution, motivated extortion gangs.
Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson (989 F.3d 190, 198–99): Opposition to gangs only constitutes a political opinion if it transcends self-protection and has a broader political ambition.
Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr (948 F.3d 94, 104): Clarifies when opposition to corruption or gangs can amount to political opinion.
Debique v. Garland (58 F.4th 676, 684): Issues not meaningfully argued in a brief are abandoned.
Yan Chen v. Gonzales (417 F.3d 268, 271) and Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions (891 F.3d 67, 76): Standards of appellate review (de novo for legal questions, substantial evidence for factual findings).

2. Legal Reasoning

The court employed well-established principles of asylum law:

“One central reason” standard: Even if criminal gangs targeted the petitioner, their motive must be linked to a protected ground. Here, the record showed extortion for money, irrespective of any protected status.
Cognizability of particular social groups: Although the BIA questioned whether “indebted small business owners” formed a cognizable group, the court rested its decision on the lack of nexus rather than on group definition.
Imputed political opinion: Drawing on Zelaya-Moreno and Hernandez-Chacon, the court held that mere refusal to pay and requests for police help are self-protective, not politically expressive, and do not amount to opposition transcending personal interest.
CAT standard: Petitioner’s failure to brief the CAT claim properly led to abandonment. Substantively, the evidence of Ecuadorian police efforts to combat gangs undercut any likelihood of state-acquiesced torture.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces several important points for future asylum seekers:

Victims of extortion by criminal gangs must tie the extortion to a protected characteristic; economic motivations alone will not suffice.
Opposition to gangs or corruption is not automatically a political opinion for asylum purposes; it must demonstrate a broader political aim or public advocacy.
Claimants should carefully develop and brief CAT claims, showing the likelihood of torture and state acquiescence.
Immigration courts and the BIA will continue to apply the “one central reason” and nexus analyses rigorously, especially in contexts of generalized violence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Nexus Requirement: To get asylum, you must show one main reason you’re harmed is because of race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion.
Particular Social Group: A group whose members share an immutable trait and are socially distinct. Even if defined, you must prove that trait motivated the harm.
Imputed Political Opinion: Persecutors may believe you hold a political opinion you deny—if that belief causes the persecution, it may ground an asylum claim. But it must go beyond protecting yourself.
Convention Against Torture (CAT): Requires showing it’s more likely than not you’d be tortured and that the government would allow or consent to it.
Substantial Evidence Standard: The appellate court won’t overturn the agency’s factual findings unless no reasonable adjudicator could have reached that conclusion.

Conclusion

Quichimbo-Caracundo v. Bondi underscores the stringent nexus and political-opinion analyses applied in asylum and withholding cases involving criminal violence and extortion. The Second Circuit reaffirmed that generalized criminal motivations—such as gangs seeking money—do not qualify as persecution on account of a protected ground. Moreover, opposition to extortion must demonstrate a genuine political dimension rather than mere self-defense. By denying both asylum and CAT relief, the court emphasized the importance of thorough legal briefing and the high bar for proving state-acquiesced torture. This decision will guide future adjudications where petitioners claim fear of non-state actors without clear ties to protected characteristics or genuine political expression.