Rivas de Nolasco v. Bondi: The Fourth Circuit Affirms § 1252(b)(1) as a Non-Jurisdictional Claims-Processing Rule and Reinforces Nexus Standards for Particular Social Group Claims

Introduction

In Yasmin Claribal Rivas de Nolasco v. Pamela Jo Bondi, No. 22-1176 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a Salvadoran family’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that had rejected their asylum and statutory-withholding applications. The opinion—authored by Senior Judge Floyd and joined in major part by Judges Niemeyer and Richardson—addresses two discrete topics of broad doctrinal importance:

Whether the 30-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is jurisdictional; and
What kind of factual link (“nexus”) is required to show that persecution is “on account of” membership in a Particular Social Group (PSG).

Applying the Supreme Court’s intervening opinion in Riley v. Bondi, 149 S. Ct. 2190 (2025), the Fourth Circuit unequivocally treats § 1252(b)(1) as a non-jurisdictional, waivable claims-processing rule. On the merits, the court affirms the BIA’s conclusion that (i) threats made by a classmate to petitioner’s son and (ii) a home-intrusion episode by gang members do not satisfy the statutory nexus requirement, notwithstanding the petitioner’s membership in two proposed PSGs—“her immediate family” and “single Salvadoran women.”

Summary of the Judgment

The court denied the petition in its entirety. Its principal findings are:

Timeliness/Jurisdiction. After Riley, the 30-day filing deadline in § 1252(b)(1) is non-jurisdictional; because the government did not invoke untimeliness as a defense, the court addressed the merits.
No Nexus to a Protected Ground. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s view that (a) a classmate’s threats toward petitioner’s son Axel and (b) gang members’ forced entry into petitioner’s home were not motivated by the petitioner’s protected characteristics.
Withholding Claim Falls with Asylum Claim. Given the higher burden for withholding of removal, failure on the asylum claim foreclosed withholding.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Riley v. Bondi, 149 S. Ct. 2190 (2025). The touchstone for the court’s jurisdictional discussion; establishes that § 1252(b)(1) does not limit the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and can be waived or forfeited.
Martinez v. Garland, 86 F.4th 561 (4th Cir. 2023), vacated sub nom. Riley. Earlier Fourth Circuit precedent treating § 1252(b)(1) as jurisdictional; used by the panel to frame why Riley alters the analytical landscape.
Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015). Cited to illustrate when family membership can satisfy the nexus element.
Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817 (4th Cir. 2020) and Sorto-Guzman v. Garland, 42 F.4th 443 (4th Cir. 2022): Reaffirm the seriousness of death threats and the “central reason” standard.
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021) and Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (2020). Clarify that withholding or CAT relief does not affect the validity of an underlying removal order.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Timeliness and the Non-Jurisdictional Nature of § 1252(b)(1)

The panel begins with supplemental briefing on whether it could entertain the petition given that it was filed more than 30 days after the IJ’s removal order became final.

Under Riley, statutory text must contain a “clear statement” before it is deemed jurisdictional. Section 1252(b)(1) lacks such language.
Thus, § 1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, and the government’s failure to invoke untimeliness constituted forfeiture.
The court expressly “leaves for another day” how § 1252(b)(1) applies when a noncitizen concedes removability, seeks asylum only, and petitions after BIA review—but it signals that courts may proceed absent a government objection.

B. Nexus Analysis for the Two Proposed PSGs

“Single Salvadoran Women” PSG
- The court assumed arguendo that the group is cognizable but held the home-invasion persecution lacked nexus. The gang’s motive was to evade police, not to harm the petitioner because she was a single woman.
- Substantial-evidence review: The record allowed multiple inferences; the BIA’s inference was not “compelled to the contrary.”
“Immediate Family” PSG
- Threats made by a classmate calling on Axel to sell drugs did not amount to persecution of petitioner, nor were they directed at her because of family ties.
- The petitioner learned of the threats only after arriving in the U.S., undermining immediacy and specificity.

C. Collateral Doctrines

Burden-shifting & Standard of Proof. Because asylum requires a lower burden than withholding, failure on asylum necessarily defeats withholding.
Scope of Review. The court restricted itself to BIA reasoning, as the BIA issued its own explanatory opinion rather than a wholesale adoption of the IJ decision.

3. Potential Impact

The opinion’s implications are twofold:

Procedural Impact—Timeliness. Litigants and counsel can now treat the 30-day deadline for petitions for review as waivable. Government lawyers must object timely, or risk having otherwise untimely petitions decided on the merits.
Substantive Impact—Nexus Standard. The decision underscores the rigorous evidentiary requirement to link a persecutor’s motive to a protected ground. Applicants relying on “single women” or family-based PSGs must present direct or circumstantial evidence showing that social group status was a central reason, not merely incidental or opportunistic.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Jurisdiction vs. Claims-Processing Rule. • Jurisdictional: Cannot be waived, and courts must dismiss if lacking. • Claims-processing: Procedural deadlines that are waivable if the opposing party does not object in time.
Particular Social Group (PSG). One of the five protected asylum grounds. The group must be (i) defined with particularity, (ii) socially distinct in the home country, and (iii) composed of immutable or fundamental characteristics.
Nexus (“on account of”). The protected characteristic must be “at least one central reason” for the persecution—not peripheral or coincidental.
Substantial-Evidence Review. A highly deferential appellate standard; the reviewing court may not overturn factual findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could agree with the agency.

Conclusion

Rivas de Nolasco v. Bondi serves as an important procedural marker in the Fourth Circuit’s immigration jurisprudence. By accepting the Supreme Court’s clarification that § 1252(b)(1) is non-jurisdictional, the court cements a waiver-friendly approach to late-filed petitions. Substantively, the opinion reiterates the demanding nature of the “nexus” requirement for PSG-based asylum claims, cautioning practitioners that generalized evidence of societal violence or gender-based vulnerability will rarely suffice.

Going forward, litigants should:

Expect the government to raise timeliness objections early—failing which, courts will likely proceed to the merits.
Gather fact-specific, motive-oriented proof (e.g., threats explicitly referencing the protected trait) when asserting PSG persecution theories.
Anticipate continued scrutiny of nexus in gang-related claims, especially where the persecutor’s motives can be reasonably interpreted as opportunistic or criminal rather than discriminatory.

The decision thus both refines procedural contours and fortifies substantive standards in asylum law within the Fourth Circuit.