Tenth Circuit Guidance: No Asylum Nexus for Purely Financial Extortion & Caution Against AI-Hallucinated Citations

Introduction

In Chumpitaz-Morales v. Bondi (10th Cir. Feb. 11, 2026) (Order and Judgment), the Tenth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final order of removal. Flora Chumpitaz-Morales, proceeding pro se on her own behalf and that of her minor daughter, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The petitioners—natives and citizens of Peru—entered the United States without inspection in August 2022 and were found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Their claims centered on threats and extortion directed at a successful salon business in Lima, Peru, which they attributed in part to alleged local political corruption connected to the mayor for whom Ms. Chumpitaz-Morales’s father had worked as a driver.

The key issues were: (1) whether the removal proceedings denied due process given alleged panic, language barriers, and self-representation; (2) whether the threatened extortion had the required nexus to a protected ground for asylum/withholding; and (3) whether the record supported CAT relief based on likely torture with official involvement or acquiescence.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Due process: Rejected. The court agreed with the BIA that Ms. Chumpitaz-Morales was informed of her right to counsel (at her expense), given a provider list, and granted continuances to seek counsel and prepare.
  • Asylum: Denied for lack of nexus. Substantial evidence supported the agency finding that petitioners were targeted “for extortion simply for financial gain” and not “on account of” family membership or any protected ground.
  • Withholding of removal: Denied because failure to meet the asylum standard (on the same facts) foreclosed withholding.
  • CAT: Denied. Petitioners failed to show it was more likely than not they would be tortured by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, including any connection between the allegedly corrupt mayor and the threats.
  • AI citation warning: In a notable footnote, the panel cautioned that filings containing misrepresented or “hallucinated” case holdings—potentially due to AI tools—may warrant sanctions, though none were imposed here.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1) Scope and standard of review of BIA/IJ decisions

  • Jimenez v. Bondi, 156 F.4th 1037, 1044 (10th Cir. 2025): The court relied on Jimenez to explain that when the BIA issues a brief, reasoned single-member decision under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5), the reviewing court focuses on the BIA’s decision but may consult the IJ’s reasoning for fuller context.
  • O.C.V. v. Bondi, 153 F.4th 974, 982 (10th Cir. 2025): Provided the governing framework: legal conclusions reviewed de novo; fact findings reviewed for “substantial evidence,” under which findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.

2) Due process in removal proceedings and self-representation limits

  • Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005): Cited twice for two related propositions: (i) courts construe pro se filings liberally but do not act as counsel; and (ii) courts will not search the record to develop a litigant’s arguments or identify evidence not cited by the litigant.
  • Chavez-Govea v. Bondi, 147 F.4th 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2025): Reinforced the distinction between the right to be represented and the absence of any mechanism requiring the government to pay for counsel in removal proceedings. This directly undercut the petitioner’s argument that inability to afford an attorney established a due process violation.
  • Matumona v. Barr, 945 F.3d 1294, 1304 (10th Cir. 2019): Supplied the prejudice requirement: to prevail on a due process claim, the petitioner must identify evidence the IJ should have elicited that would have altered the BIA’s findings. The court used Matumona to reject the due process claim because petitioners did not identify missing evidence beyond what the IJ elicited.

3) Asylum nexus, protected grounds, and exhaustion/forfeiture

  • Miguel-Peña v. Garland, 94 F.4th 1145, 1159 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 545 (2024): Anchored the asylum elements: persecution (or well-founded fear) must be “on account of” one of five protected grounds. The court also invoked Miguel-Peña for the economic-motive principle: where there is no evidence the persecutor would be hostile absent financial motives, the nexus requirement fails.
  • Jimenez v. Bondi, 156 F.4th at 1046: Provided the “one central reason” nexus requirement and the reminder that the court does not reweigh evidence under substantial evidence review.
  • Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007): Cited for forfeiture: omission of an issue in the opening brief generally forfeits appellate review. This supported the court’s decision not to revisit the BIA’s waiver/exhaustion ruling on past persecution.

4) Withholding and CAT standards

  • Escobar-Hernandez v. Barr, 940 F.3d 1358, 1362 (10th Cir. 2019): Used for the familiar rule that withholding has a higher burden than asylum; thus, failure on asylum (on the same facts) forecloses withholding.
  • Cruz-Funez v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1187, 1192 (10th Cir. 2005): Set out CAT’s core requirement: the applicant must show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by a public official, or at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of such an official.

5) AI “hallucinations” and sanctions risk

  • Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 157661, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026): Quoted for defining AI “hallucinations” as fictional, inaccurate, or nonsensical output from large language models. The Tenth Circuit used this to frame the problem of fabricated or mismatched citations.
  • Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2024): Cited as an example of serious consequences—dismissal of a counseled appeal—where filings included fabricated citations.
  • 10th Cir. R. 46.5(B), (C): Cited to underscore the court’s authority to sanction misrepresentations in filings.

Legal Reasoning

1) Due process: opportunity, notice, and prejudice

The court’s due process analysis tracks a practical, prejudice-centered framework: even assuming distress or barriers during a hearing, the petitioner must show procedural unfairness that likely mattered to the outcome. The panel emphasized (as the BIA did) concrete procedural safeguards: notice of the right to counsel, a list of free/low-cost providers, and continuances to secure counsel and prepare filings. It then applied Matumona v. Barr to require a showing of what additional evidence should have been elicited and how it would change the agency’s findings—something petitioners did not provide.

2) Asylum: the “nexus” requirement defeats financially motivated extortion claims

The decisive holding is evidentiary and deferential: substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the extortion and threats were motivated by financial gain rather than political opinion, family membership, or any other protected ground. The opinion highlights testimony that the salon was targeted because it was profitable and located in a busy commercial area, that other businesses were also extorted, and that the perpetrators “just want money.” Under the substantial evidence standard, those admissions were enough to make the agency’s nexus finding “conclusive,” even if alternative interpretations were conceivable.

The court also reinforced a recurring appellate constraint for pro se litigants: liberal construction does not require the court to scour the record for un-cited evidence supporting a protected-ground theory (Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer).

3) Withholding: higher burden, same factual premise

Because withholding of removal requires a “clear probability” of persecution on account of a protected ground, the failure to show protected-ground nexus for asylum necessarily defeated withholding on the same facts (Escobar-Hernandez v. Barr).

4) CAT: no showing of official involvement or acquiescence

The CAT analysis turned on the missing link between generalized criminal threats and state action. The BIA found no evidence tying the alleged corruption of the mayor to the extortion threats, and the petitioner did not meaningfully challenge that finding with record citations on petition for review. Applying Cruz-Funez v. Gonzales, the court held the record did not establish it was “more likely than not” petitioners would face torture with official instigation, consent, or acquiescence.

Impact

  • Extortion-asylum claims in the Tenth Circuit: The decision reinforces that ordinary criminal extortion—even with threats and weapons—typically fails asylum nexus absent evidence that the harm is motivated by a protected ground rather than by profit. Applicants must develop evidence that the persecutor’s motive is tied to protected status or protected activity, not merely to perceived wealth or business success.
  • Record development and pro se limits: The opinion underscores that petitioners must identify specific record evidence and arguments on appeal; courts will not do record excavation to build a protected-ground theory.
  • CAT claims require a state-action component: Fear of criminals is insufficient without a supported theory of official involvement, willful blindness, or acquiescence that meets the “more likely than not” standard.
  • Growing judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted filings: The footnote is a pointed warning: misstatements of holdings and fabricated citations—whether intentional or AI-generated—can expose litigants to sanctions, and the duty of accuracy applies to “all litigants—represented and unrepresented.” Even though this Order and Judgment is nonprecedential, it signals the court’s enforcement posture and aligns with national trends reflected in Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't and Grant v. City of Long Beach.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Protected grounds (asylum)
Asylum is not granted for all dangers. The feared harm must be because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Nexus / “one central reason”
The protected ground must be a central reason the persecutor targets the applicant. If the persecutor is mainly motivated by money (extortion), the nexus requirement usually fails unless the money-demand is a means to punish or target a protected trait or belief.
Substantial evidence review
On factual disputes, the court asks only whether the agency’s view is reasonably supported by the record. If it is, the court will not reweigh competing interpretations.
Exhaustion / waiver / forfeiture
Issues generally must be raised to the BIA first (exhaustion), and then properly raised in the opening appellate brief (avoid forfeiture). If not, the court typically will not consider them.
CAT “acquiescence”
CAT relief requires more than danger from private criminals; it requires that torture is likely and that government officials will inflict it, instigate it, consent to it, or acquiesce in it.
AI “hallucinations” in legal citations
Some AI tools can generate plausible-looking but incorrect statements about what cases hold—or even fabricate citations. Courts treat inaccurate citations as serious misrepresentations.

Conclusion

Chumpitaz-Morales v. Bondi affirms, on substantial evidence review, that extortion aimed at a successful business for financial gain—without supported proof of a protected-ground motive—does not satisfy the asylum nexus requirement, and consequently cannot sustain withholding of removal on the same facts. It also illustrates the demanding state-action component of CAT claims, rejecting relief where the asserted link to official corruption was not substantiated. Finally, the decision contributes to emerging appellate guidance on litigation integrity in the AI era: inaccurate or “hallucinated” citations may trigger sanctions, and all litigants must take reasonable care to ensure factual and legal accuracy in filings.