“Central-Reason” Nexus Re-affirmed in Gang-Recruitment Cases: Deleg-Lopez v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

Deleg-Lopez v. Bondi presented the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with another iteration of a recurring question in asylum jurisprudence: when threats and violence stem from criminal recruitment, can the victim claim persecution “on account of” membership in a particular social group (PSG)? Petitioners—an Ecuadorian couple and their minor child—argued that they were persecuted because they belonged to the PSG of “younger parents of the lower socio-economic class in Ecuador.” The Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected this nexus theory, and the Second Circuit, in a non-precedential summary order, denied review.

Although summary orders lack formal precedential force under Local Rule 32.1.1, Deleg-Lopez consolidates several recent Second Circuit pronouncements on the “one central reason” requirement, waiver doctrine, and the handling of gang-recruitment claims. Immigration practitioners and adjudicators will find the court’s synthesis of Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, Quituizaca v. Garland, and Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey especially instructive.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Claims Raised: Asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
• Procedural Posture: IJ denial → BIA affirmance (and finding of CAT waiver) → petition for review to the Second Circuit.
• Holdings:
  • CAT claim deemed abandoned on petition for review because Petitioners failed to contest the BIA’s waiver finding.
  • Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s ruling that gang violence was motivated by the gang’s desire to recruit Deleg-Lopez, not by his membership in the asserted PSG; therefore, no statutory nexus existed for asylum or withholding.
  • Because nexus failed, the court declined to address whether “younger parents of the lower socio-economic class” is a cognizable PSG.
• Disposition: Petition for review DENIED; all stays and motions vacated.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The court’s reasoning relied heavily on a line of Second Circuit cases tightening the nexus inquiry:

• Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752 (2d Cir. 2022)
  Clarified that when multiple motives exist, a protected ground must be more than “tangential or incidental” — it must be “at least one central reason.” Deleg-Lopez imports this terminology verbatim, finding the gang’s motivation “recruitment” rather than hostility toward a PSG.
• Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103 (2d Cir. 2022)
  Applied the “one central reason” test to withholding of removal claims. Deleg-Lopez uses Quituizaca to confirm that the same nexus standard governs both asylum and withholding.
• Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014)
  Emphasized two separate requirements: (1) PSG cognizability and (2) motive. Deleg-Lopez follows the Paloka blueprint: because motive fails, the panel need not analyze cognizability.
• Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007)
  Held that extortionate crime, absent persecutory motive, generally falls outside asylum protection. Deleg-Lopez analogizes gang recruitment to “ordinary criminal incentives,” underscoring the same doctrinal boundary.
• Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676 (2d Cir. 2023)
  Provided the abandonment framework the court invoked to dispose of the CAT claim.

3.2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review
   Whether substantial evidence supports factual findings (8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(B)). Legal questions, such as waiver and statutory interpretation, are reviewed de novo.
2. Waiver/Abandonment of CAT
   Petitioners’ failure to brief either the BIA’s waiver ruling or the merits of CAT amounted to abandonment (Debique). The court’s reminder is a cautionary tale: silence equals forfeiture.
3. Nexus Analysis
   a) Petitioners alleged the PSG “younger parents of the lower socio-economic class in Ecuador.”
   b) The record showed gang members threatened Deleg-Lopez repeatedly to coerce him into joining their gang.
   c) Applying Garcia-Aranda and Quituizaca, the panel held that recruitment-motive outweighed any parenthood-or-youth motive; thus protected ground was not “one central reason.”
4. Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance/Unnecessary Findings
   Citing INS v. Bagamasbad, the court declined to opine on PSG cognizability because nexus failure alone disposed of the case.

3.3. Potential Impact

Despite its summary-order status, Deleg-Lopez reinforces several practical lessons:

• Gang-Recruitment Claims Face High Nexus Bar
  Applicants must supply evidence—direct or circumstantial—that gangs target them because of a protected characteristic, not simply for utilitarian recruitment.
• Bilateral Effect on Counsel Strategy
  • Petitioners’ counsel must gather indicia of discriminatory intent (slurs, patterns, threats directed at the group, etc.).
  • Government counsel can invoke Deleg-Lopez to argue that recruitment, extortion, or turf-based violence reflect criminal motives, not persecution.
• Strict Enforcement of Waiver
  The court’s swift dismissal of the CAT claim shows little tolerance for under-briefed issues, echoing Debique.
• Doctrinal Consolidation
  The opinion synthesizes recent circuit precedent, offering an accessible “one-stop” citation list for IJs, the BIA, and future litigants.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Particular Social Group (PSG): A legally recognizable collection of people who share an innate or immutable characteristic, are socially distinct within their society, and are defined with particularity.
• Nexus / “One Central Reason”: The causal link between the persecution and a protected ground. The protected ground must be more than a peripheral motive; it must be at least one key driver.
• Substantial Evidence Standard: An appellate court will uphold agency findings unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.
• Abandonment on Appeal: Issues not meaningfully argued in the brief are treated as waived; the court will not rescue latent claims.
• Summary Order: A disposition without precedential effect, used when the panel believes existing precedent governs and formal opinion writing is unnecessary.

5. Conclusion

Deleg-Lopez v. Bondi reinforces the Second Circuit’s recent trajectory: asylum applicants must anchor their persecution claims to a protected ground that serves as a central reason for the harm, not a tangential attribute. Recruitment by criminal gangs, without evidence of discriminatory animus, generally falls short. Additionally, the decision underscores the importance of fully briefing all claims; silence is fatal.

While non-precedential, Deleg-Lopez carries persuasive weight and harmonizes the Second Circuit’s post-2020 nexus jurisprudence. Practitioners should treat it as a roadmap when evaluating or litigating gang-based or crime-motivated asylum petitions. Ultimately, the case illustrates the delicate balance between humanitarian protection and the statutory demand for a persecutor’s specific motive.