Ventura-Duarte v. Bondi: Second Circuit Clarifies the “One-Central-Reason” Nexus in Gang-Related Asylum Claims after Matter of L-E-A-

1. Introduction

Ventura-Duarte v. Bondi is a 2025 summary order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Although summary orders technically lack precedential force, they frequently influence future litigation through their reasoning. Here, the court addresses a recurring issue in Central American asylum litigation: whether threats from criminal gangs aimed at recruiting youth can be linked—nexus—to a protected ground (religion, political opinion, nationality, race, or “membership in a particular social group” (PSG)).

The petitioners—Odili Elizabeth Ventura-Duarte and her two minor children—contended that Salvadoran gangs persecuted them because they are Christians and members of the same nuclear family. They sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected the claims, and the Second Circuit now affirms.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The court denied the petition in full, concluding that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s findings that:

No Sufficient Nexus — The threats arose from the gang’s recruitment motives (the son’s physical stature) rather than any animus toward the family’s Christianity or family status.
Religion-Based PSG Claim Fails — “Christian women” may be a cognizable PSG, but the record showed no evidence the gang even knew of the family’s faith.
Family-Based PSG Claim Fails Post-L-E-A- — Even assuming the nuclear family qualified as a PSG, family membership was not “one central reason” for the threats.
CAT Claim Fails — The record did not compel a finding that the petitioners would more likely than not be tortured with governmental acquiescence if returned to El Salvador.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

“A petitioner must show, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the persecutor’s motive to persecute arises from a protected ground.” —Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005)

Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1999) — Reinforces that generalized criminal violence is not enough for asylum.
Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022) — Establishes that the “one central reason” standard applies to both asylum and withholding. The court relied on Quituizaca to affirm that ordinary criminal motives defeat nexus.
Yueqing Zhang & Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2006) — Provide the analytical framework for substantial-evidence review of nexus findings.
Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I.&N. Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (vacating the 2019 decision) — Affirms that nuclear families can be PSGs. Petitioners argued this required remand; the BIA and Circuit held it would not change the outcome because nexus was still lacking.
Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752 (2d Cir. 2022) — Clarifies that using a family member as leverage (means to an end) does not satisfy the “central reason” test.
Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2021) — Distinguishes ordinary resistance to gangs from protected political opinion.
CAT Cases — Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569 (2d Cir. 2021); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) — Inform the court’s analysis of government acquiescence and probability of torture.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Substantial Evidence Review – The court deferred to the agency’s factual findings unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. Threat evidence, duration, and lack of follow-up by the gang supported the agency’s conclusion that persecution was for recruitment, not religion or family status.
The Nexus Requirement – Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) and § 1231(b)(3)(A), a protected ground must be a “central” reason. The record: (a) no evidence gang knew of Christianity; (b) size, not faith, made son a target; (c) family threatened only to pressure the son. Result: no central nexus.
Handling of Matter of L-E-A- – The BIA reasonably declined to remand because even with a family-based PSG, petitioners could not show that family membership motivated the gang. The gang’s goal was recruitment, not retribution against a protected characteristic.
Political Opinion Claim Abandoned – The court enforced waiver doctrine (Debique v. Garland) and, alternatively, cited Zelaya-Moreno to show non-political nature of anti-gang refusals.
CAT Analysis – Petitioners did not report threats to police; thus, record lacked proof of governmental awareness/ acquiescence. Country reports demonstrated El Salvador’s anti-gang efforts, supporting a finding against likely future torture with state acquiescence.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

1. Practical Guidance on Post-L-E-A- Litigation.
The case signals that even after restoring the viability of family-based PSGs, applicants must still satisfy the demanding nexus component. Counsel cannot rely on mere familial targeting if that targeting is instrumental to a gang’s non-protected aim, such as recruitment or ransom.

2. Clarification of Religion-Based Nexus in Gang Context.
The decision underscores how difficult it is to prove religious motivation when gangs threaten individuals who happen to be religious, absent proof the persecutor was aware of or opposed that religion.

3. CAT Standards Reinforced.
The judgment illustrates the evidentiary threshold for showing both (i) likelihood of torture, and (ii) state acquiescence, especially when the applicant did not seek government protection.

4. Effect on Circuit Practice.
Although a summary order, the ruling will likely be cited as persuasive authority in briefs and IJ opinions within the Second Circuit to rebut nexus arguments in similar gang-recruitment cases.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group (PSG) — A category of persons sharing an immutable characteristic (e.g., family ties, sexual orientation) who are recognized as a group in society.
Nexus / “One Central Reason” — There must be a causal link showing the persecutor targeted the applicant because of the protected trait, and that trait was not incidental.
Substantial Evidence Standard — The appellate court defers to agency fact-finding unless no reasonable fact-finder could agree with it.
CAT Torture Standard — Applicant must prove it is “more likely than not” she would face severe pain or suffering, inflicted with government involvement or acquiescence.
Government Acquiescence — Not just inability to prevent harm, but prior awareness and a breach of duty to intervene.

5. Conclusion

Ventura-Duarte v. Bondi reinforces the centrality of the nexus requirement in asylum jurisprudence, particularly where threats from criminal gangs overlap with applicants’ religious beliefs or family ties. Even after Matter of L-E-A- revived family-based PSG theories, applicants must still prove the persecutor’s animus toward the family was a central, not incidental, reason for the harm. The decision also reaffirms the high bar for CAT relief where evidence of governmental acquiescence is thin. Practitioners handling gang-related asylum claims in the Second Circuit must therefore marshal specific proof that the gang’s hostility stems from a protected ground—mere recruitment efforts, even if violent, will not suffice.