“Beyond Mere Opposition to Gangs” – The Second Circuit’s Re-affirmation of the Nexus and Credibility Thresholds for Gang-Related Asylum Claims after Matter of A-B-III

Introduction

In Acero-Zaruma v. Bondi, No. 23-7465 (2d Cir. July 25, 2025) (summary order), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confronted the increasingly frequent scenario in which asylum applicants invoke gang violence and threats by non-state actors as evidence of persecution. Petitioner José Baltazar Acero-Zaruma, an indigenous Ecuadorian and evangelical Christian, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after suffering a broken leg allegedly inflicted by a gang member who attempted to recruit him. Both the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief, principally on credibility grounds and for failure to prove a nexus between the alleged harm and any protected ground under U. S. asylum law.

On petition for review Mr. Acero-Zaruma argued—among other points—that the BIA should have remanded his case in light of the Attorney General’s 2021 decision Matter of A-B- III, which vacated the restrictive gang-violence reasoning of Matter of A-B- I. In a detailed yet non-precedential summary order, the Second Circuit denied the petition, thereby re-affirming two doctrinal pillars that continue to loom large in gang-related asylum litigation:

The centrality of credibility determinations grounded in statutory factors, and
The stringent nexus requirement—opposition to gangs, without more, does not automatically constitute political opinion, membership in a cognizable particular social group, or any other protected ground.

Summary of the Judgment

Adverse Credibility Upheld: The court found substantial evidence supporting inconsistencies, implausibilities, and lack of corroboration relied upon by the IJ/BIA.
Nexus Not Established: Even assuming some facts were true (broken leg, gang recruitment effort, indigenous identity), petitioner failed to show that the harm occurred “on account of” race, religion, political opinion, or a cognizable social group.
No Basis for Remand Post-A-B- III: The panel held remand unnecessary because the IJ’s and BIA’s reasoning conformed with current precedent; altering Matter of A-B- I did not change the outcome.
Relief Denied: Asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and humanitarian asylum were all foreclosed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel drew upon an array of Second Circuit and BIA decisions, emphasizing the following:

Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) – Confirmed that the reviewing court examines the IJ’s opinion as supplemented by the BIA.
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) – Established that an IJ need not accept an applicant’s proffered explanations for inconsistencies if they are not compelling.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) – Clarified standard of review: questions of law de novo, factual findings for substantial evidence.
Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2021) – Critical to nexus analysis; mere resistance to gang recruitment is not inherently a political opinion.
Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022) – Reiterated that ordinary criminal motives often defeat nexus.
Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, 948 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2020) – Explained the “particular social group” tripartite test (immutability, particularity, social distinction).
Matter of A-B- III, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (BIA 2021) – Removed the sweeping limitations on private-actor violence set by A-B- I; yet the court held its alterations did not aid petitioner.

By weaving these precedents together, the panel underscored a consistent judicial posture: absent compelling evidence tying gang violence to a protected trait, asylum claims will founder.

2. Legal Reasoning of the Court

Credibility Framework. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or implausibility, whether or not it “goes to the heart” of the claim. The court catalogued two key inconsistencies (year of theft; party who initiated suit) and highlighted the implausibility of a gang aggressor voluntarily submitting to civil litigation.
Lack of Corroboration. Drawing on Biao Yang, the panel approved the IJ’s finding that scant corroborative evidence (e.g., a single lawyer’s affidavit) could not rehabilitate an already shaky narrative.
Nexus Analysis. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the court stressed that why the persecutor acted matters. The gang’s motives here appeared “ordinary criminal”—to avenge theft and compel recruitment—rather than racial, religious, or political. Without evidence of political ambition, organizing activity, or social group distinction recognized in Ecuadorian society, the claim failed each protected-ground theory.
Mooted Remand Request. Even after A-B- III, the standard for establishing a nexus to a cognizable social group (or political opinion) remains stringent. Because the IJ assumed, arguendo, gang recruitment but still found no nexus, remand would be futile—an abuse-of-discretion standard easily met.

3. Potential Impact of the Judgment

Guidance for Practitioners. Although a “summary order” lacks formal precedential force, it offers persuasive guidance in the Second Circuit: counsel must marshal both credible testimony and corroborative evidence linking gang-related harm to a protected ground.
Nexus Litigation Post-A-B- III. The decision tempers any expectation that vacatur of A-B- I dramatically eases nexus requirements; applicants must still demonstrate social distinction or political content beyond generalized criminal victimhood.
Credibility as a Gatekeeper. By reaffirming the breadth of § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), the court signals that IJs may continue to invoke seemingly “minor” discrepancies in date, sequence, or motive to support adverse credibility findings.
Social-Group Formulations. The panel’s endorsement of Hernandez-Chacon underscores the necessity of country-condition evidence demonstrating societal perception— an area where many gang-related social group claims falter.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Credibility Determination: An IJ’s formal finding that an applicant’s testimony is not believable, based on inconsistencies, implausibilities, demeanor, or lack of corroboration.
Nexus: The causal link between the harm suffered (or feared) and one of the five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. At least “one central reason” for the persecution must be the protected ground.
Particular Social Group (PSG): A group of persons who share (1) a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) are socially distinct in the applicant’s society. Examples include “women who cannot leave domestic relationships.” Being “people who dislike gangs” generally fails.
Summary Order: A non-precedential disposition by the Second Circuit (or other circuits), permissible for citation but not binding authority under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1.
Matter of A-B- III: A 2021 BIA decision vacating previous Attorney General decisions (A-B- I & II), thereby reopening the possibility that “private-actor” violence can, in some circumstances, constitute persecution. However, it did not vitiate existing nexus and credibility rules.

Conclusion

Acero-Zaruma v. Bondi underscores a fundamental reality in U.S. asylum law: credible, consistent evidence and a demonstrable nexus to a protected ground are indispensable, even—or especially—when the narrative involves gang violence. The Second Circuit’s refusal to remand in light of A-B- III signals that the vacatur of earlier restrictive precedent does not dilute applicants’ burdens. For practitioners, the opinion is a cautionary tale: shore up client testimony, anticipate every discrepancy, and marshal country-specific proof establishing that the harm is politically, racially, religiously, or socially motivated rather than merely criminal. For the law, the order quietly but firmly re-affirms that “opposition to gangs,” standing alone, remains outside the statutory umbrella of protected grounds.