Second Circuit Re-Emphasizes Waiver and Particular-Social-Group Requirements in Asylum Appeals:
A Detailed Commentary on Arboleda-Urrutia v. Bondi (2025)

Introduction

On 25 June 2025 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a summary order in Arboleda-Urrutia v. Bondi, No. 23-7111, denying a petition for review filed by a family of Ecuadorian nationals who had sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Although designated as a non-precedential “summary order,” the decision provides a robust reminder of two critical doctrines that routinely shape asylum litigation:

1. Waiver / Abandonment: Issues not properly raised before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) or meaningfully briefed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) are deemed waived and cannot be revived on petition for review.
2. Particular Social Group (“PSG”) Requirements: Applicants must (a) articulate a cognizable social group under Matter of W-G-R- and allied cases, and (b) establish a nexus—i.e., that the persecution was “on account of” that membership.

By affirming the BIA’s findings on waiver and PSG cognizability—and by rejecting a late-asserted “imputed political opinion” theory—the Court clarifies practical pleading standards that will guide future asylum practitioners within the Second Circuit.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioners—Juan Fernando Arboleda-Urrutia, his wife Mayra Daniela Zapata-Aucatonia, and their minor son—were denied relief by an IJ in May 2022. The BIA affirmed in August 2023. A central theme before both tribunals was whether violent gang encounters experienced by Mr. Arboleda, a produce-truck driver in Ecuador, constituted persecution “on account of” membership in a PSG or a protected political opinion.

Key dispositive holdings by the Second Circuit include:

• CAT Claim: Deemed waived because the petitioners failed to “meaningfully address” it before the BIA and again on petition for review (citing Debique v. Garland).
• PSG Theory (Truck Drivers): The proposed group lacked social distinction in Ecuadorian society; petitioners supplied no record evidence to the contrary (citing Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland).
• Imputed Political Opinion: Rejected because it was (i) raised for the first time on appeal and (ii) unsupported by evidence—robbery to steal cargo is a criminal motive, not a protected ground.
• Wife’s Independent Claim: Abandoned; she did not challenge the IJ/BIA findings on failure to prove past or future persecution.
• Family-Based PSG: Not considered because it was never presented to the IJ, allowing the BIA to decline review under Prabhudial v. Holder.

Consequently, the Court denied the petition in full and vacated all stays.

Analysis

a. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023) – cementing the rule that issues not “adequately presented” are abandoned. This case drove the CAT waiver and various abandonment determinations.
• Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569 (2d Cir. 2021) – reiterating the “social distinction” component of PSG analysis; the Court relied on it to dismiss the “truck driver” group.
• Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) – governing standard-of-review: substantial‐evidence for facts, de novo for law. Provided the analytic lens for appellate review.
• Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) – imputed political-opinion framework and waiver principles; cited to show petitioners’ failure to articulate a qualifying opinion claim.
• INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) – principle that tribunals need not reach issues unnecessary to the outcome; used to bypass additional, non-dispositive arguments.
• Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014), Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) – defining elements of asylum/withholding and the subjective–objective test for fear of persecution.

b. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review. The Second Circuit reviewed “final orders of removal” (8 U.S.C. § 1252) and adopted the IJ’s findings as modified by the BIA. Factual findings were reviewed for “substantial evidence,” legal conclusions de novo.
2. Waiver / Abandonment Doctrine. The Court repeatedly invoked Debique. Any claim not raised with specificity to the BIA—or not supported by developed argument—was waived. This disposed of the CAT claim, the wife’s persecution claim, and portions of the PSG arguments.
3. Particular Social Group Analysis. Applying Matter of M-E-V-G- and its Second Circuit progeny (Quintanilla-Mejia), the Court required petitioners to show (1) immutability, (2) social distinction, and (3) particularity. The proposed group “truck drivers carrying produce” was deemed indistinct within Ecuadorian society; no record evidence of societal perception was presented.
4. Nexus Requirement. Even if the PSG were cognizable, petitioners did not prove that the gang’s motive was a protected ground rather than pure criminal profit (truck and cargo theft).
5. Imputed Political Opinion. The Court held that mere resistance to crime does not transform a robbery into political persecution. Without evidence the gang viewed him as a political opponent, the claim failed both procedurally (untimely) and substantively.
6. Objective Reasonableness of Future Fear. For Ms. Zapata, subjective fear of kidnapping, unsupported by corroboration or pattern-and-practice evidence, did not meet the objective component under Ramsameachire.

c. Likely Impact of the Decision

Although the order is styled “non-precedential,” it will likely exert significant persuasive influence in three ways:

1. Pleading Discipline. Practitioners will treat this case as a cautionary tale: undeveloped or late-raised theories (e.g., imputed political opinion, family-based PSG) will not survive appellate scrutiny.
2. Heightened PSG Evidence. Applicants who rely on employment-type PSGs (truck drivers, taxi drivers, journalists, etc.) must marshal country-condition evidence showing societal recognition, not merely immutability or risk of harm.
3. Clarifying Criminal vs. Political Motive. The decision underscores the need to disentangle ordinary criminality from persecution “on account of” a protected ground—an issue that frequently arises in gang-violence asylum claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Summary Order: A short, non-precedential decision. Under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it may be cited but lacks binding authority.
• Particular Social Group (PSG): One of the five protected grounds in asylum law. It must be: immutable (cannot be changed), socially distinct (recognized by society), and particular (defined narrowly and clearly).
• Waiver vs. Abandonment: “Waiver” occurs when an issue is not raised at all; “abandonment” arises when it is mentioned but not argued with supporting reasoning or evidence.
• Imputed Political Opinion: Persecution based on a political view the applicant is thought to hold, even if they do not actually hold it. Evidence must show persecutors attribute that opinion to the applicant and target them for it.
• Substantial Evidence Standard: The reviewing court asks whether any reasonable fact-finder could have made the same finding—an intentionally deferential test.
• Subjective vs. Objective Fear: The applicant’s genuine fear (subjective) must be supported by reasonable, external facts (objective) to satisfy asylum eligibility.

Conclusion

Arboleda-Urrutia v. Bondi serves as a stringent reminder that asylum and withholding claims live or die on meticulous issue preservation and robust evidentiary support. Litigants must:

• Develop every theory—CAT, PSG, political opinion—before the IJ, supported by specific arguments and country evidence;
• Provide record proof that a proposed PSG is viewed as distinct in the relevant society and that persecution is because of that membership;
• Differentiate ordinary criminal motives from protected-ground persecution, especially in gang or cartel contexts.

Although not precedential, the Court’s application of waiver doctrine and PSG requirements will almost certainly influence IJ and BIA deliberations within the Second Circuit—and will guide advocates in framing future asylum claims nationwide.