“Chain-of-Speculation” Insufficiency and Minor-Service NTAs: An In-Depth Commentary on Lopez-Avila v. Bondi

1. Introduction

The Second Circuit’s summary order in Lopez-Avila v. Bondi (Aug. 1 2025) addresses two recurring themes in immigration jurisprudence:

1. Whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) served on an unaccompanied minor meets due-process requirements; and
2. The evidentiary burden for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), particularly where the feared harm is predicated on a “chain of speculative events.”

Francisco Isaias Lopez-Avila, a Salvadoran national with multiple convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) and an aggregate sentence exceeding five years, petitioned for review of a BIA decision that:

• Denied his motion to terminate removal proceedings on notice-of-service grounds; and
• Rejected his application for CAT relief predicated on mental illness, tattoos, criminal history, and general gang violence in El Salvador.

Despite counsel’s briefing deficiencies, the panel (Chief Judge Livingston, Judges Lee and Nathan) elected to reach the merits, ultimately denying the petition.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The court held that the NTA was properly served: a conservator and later the petitioner’s father received notice, and an I-770 “Notice of Rights” was read to him in Spanish.
• Mental health issues arising a decade later did not retroactively undermine the adequacy of the original notice.
• Under CAT, petitioner failed to meet the “more-likely-than-not” torture standard because the feared chain of events (medication lapse ➜ odd behavior ➜ police detention ➜ torture) was too speculative and unsupported by record evidence.
• Tattoos were not gang-related; generalized gang violence and speculative government mistreatment were insufficient for CAT.
• The panel admonished counsel for non-compliant briefing and signaled willingness to dismiss future cases for Rule 28 violations.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (2020) — reaffirmed that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) jurisdictional limits do not foreclose CAT review; thus, the court reached CAT merits despite CIMT bar.
2. Nolasco v. Holder, 637 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2011) — articulated due-process adequacy when alien receives notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard; applied to validate NTA service.
3. Taylor v. Harbour Pointe HOA, 690 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2012) & Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) — invoked to caution counsel about briefing non-compliance.
4. Savchuck v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) & In re J-F-F-, 23 I.&N. Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006) — cornerstone “chain-of-speculation” cases requiring each link of future harm to meet the “more-likely-than-not” probability. The panel relied heavily on this framework.
5. Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2021) — used to reject “general crime conditions” as a CAT basis.
6. Xue Hong Yang v. DOJ, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) — instructs that the appellate court reviews the IJ opinion as modified by the BIA.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Adequacy of Notice to Appear for a Minor

• Statutory Requirements: 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) enumerates elements that an NTA must contain (nature of proceedings, charges, time/place).
• Due-Process Yardstick: Under Nolasco, actual notice plus meaningful participation suffices.
• Application: The panel noted petitioner’s attendance at hearings, representation, and opportunity to testify. Even assuming technical service deficiencies, no prejudice was shown.
• Mental Health Argument: Competency issues surfaced in 2015, eleven years after the 2004 NTA; therefore, they could not retroactively taint notice.

3.2.2 CAT Relief and the “Chain of Speculation”

1. Standard: 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) — applicant must show it is “more likely than not” he would be tortured.
2. Definition of Torture: 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) — severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted by or with acquiescence of a public official.
3. Petitioner’s Theory: Lack of medication ➜ erratic behavior ➜ police detention (for tattoos or disorderly conduct) ➜ torture in prison or mental institution.
4. Panel’s Evaluation:
   • Each link (unavailability of meds, guaranteed detention, torture in state custody) lacked evidentiary support.
   • No record evidence that Salvadoran authorities target the mentally ill for torture.
   • Tattoos were not gang-indicative; at most they could trigger questioning, not inevitable detention.
   • General gang violence did not single out petitioner; Zelaya-Moreno forecloses generalized fear.
5. Result: Insufficient probability; therefore, denial of CAT upheld.

3.3 Potential Impact

Although a “Summary Order” has no formal precedential weight (see FRAP 32.1; Local Rule 32.1.1), the decision offers practical guidance:

• For Practitioners: Counsel must ensure compliant briefs; the panel expressly threatens dismissal and discipline for future Rule 28 violations.
• For Minors’ NTAs: Service on a responsible adult plus language-appropriate explanation may satisfy due process, even where the minor’s later-developed mental illness is asserted.
• For CAT Claims: The “chain-of-speculation” doctrine remains a formidable barrier. Applicants must buttress every causal link with record evidence, especially when relying on mental-health-based vulnerabilities.
• Jurisdictional Clarification: Reinforces that CIMT and aggregate-sentence bars do not strip appellate review over CAT claims (post-Nasrallah landscape).

4. Simplifying Complex Concepts

NTA (Notice to Appear)

The charging document that initiates removal proceedings, similar to an indictment in criminal law.

CIMT (Crime Involving Moral Turpitude)

An offense that gravely violates accepted moral standards (e.g., theft, fraud, assault). Certain CIMTs trigger mandatory removal.

CAT (Convention Against Torture)

An international treaty prohibiting removal to a country where a person is more likely than not to face torture by, or with the consent of, public officials.

“Chain-of-Speculation” Test

A doctrine requiring that each step in the predicted sequence of events leading to torture be proven probable, not merely possible.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)–(D)

Statutory limits on judicial review when a non-citizen is removable for certain crimes, except for constitutional claims, questions of law, and (post-Nasrallah) CAT challenges.

5. Conclusion

Lopez-Avila v. Bondi underscores two critical points in contemporary immigration adjudication:

1. The Second Circuit will deem notice adequate for minors if record evidence shows understanding and opportunity to participate, even where later-arising mental health issues exist.
2. CAT applicants must present concrete, corroborated evidence for each stage of alleged future harm; speculative links will doom the claim.

While non-precedential, the order reflects the Circuit’s persistent adherence to due-process pragmatism and stringent CAT standards, offering a cautionary tale for counsel and a roadmap for litigants navigating similar factual terrain.