“Martinez v. Bondi”: The Fourth Circuit Clarifies the BIA’s Duty to Assess Prima-Facie Eligibility and Discretion in Motions to Reopen for Cancellation of Removal

1. Introduction

The unpublished opinion in Wilmer Martinez v. Pamela Bondi, No. 23-2306 (4th Cir. July 31, 2025) presents a multipart immigration dispute culminating in a partially favorable outcome for the Honduran petitioner. Although the court affirmed denial of asylum and withholding of removal, it vacated and remanded the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) refusal to reopen proceedings for consideration of cancellation of removal. Importantly, the Fourth Circuit articulated a procedural rule: when the BIA is confronted with a motion to reopen that seeks a new form of discretionary relief (here, cancellation of removal), it must:

apply the “reasonable likelihood” test for prima-facie eligibility, rather than a more stringent “would likely win” standard, and
demonstrate on the record that it weighed the new evidence and separately addressed both statutory eligibility and discretionary factors before denying relief.

The decision thus tightens oversight of the BIA’s handling of reopening motions and will likely influence future litigation strategy in the Fourth Circuit and beyond.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Particular Social Group (PSG): The court agreed with the BIA that “Hondurans who return after living in the United States for multiple years” lacks the particularity required for a cognizable PSG.
Nexus to Family-based PSG: Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that threats arose from a private land dispute, not from Martinez’s relationship to his mother; therefore, asylum and withholding were properly denied.
Motion to Reopen / Cancellation of Removal: The BIA abused its discretion by (a) applying an inappropriately high prima-facie standard and (b) failing to analyze evidence relating to statutory and discretionary criteria. That portion of the order was vacated and remanded.
Disposition: Petition for review—denied in part, granted in part; vacated and remanded.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Role

Garcia v. Garland, 73 F.4th 219 (4th Cir. 2023); Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011); Amaya v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2021)
• These cases articulate the three-part PSG test—immutability, social distinction, and particularity—against which Martinez’s “returning Hondurans” group failed.
Moreno-Osorio v. Garland, 2 F.4th 245 (4th Cir. 2021)
• The court relied heavily on Moreno-Osorio to deem “returning migrants” overly amorphous, foreclosing Martinez’s analogous PSG.
Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2017) and family-PSG nexus cases (Crespin-Valladares, Hernandez-Avalos)
• Provided the framework for evaluating whether harm is “on account of” a protected ground; guided rejection of Martinez’s family-based nexus claim.
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988); BIA decisions in In re Coelho, 20 I.&N. Dec. 464 (1992) and In re L-O-G-, 21 I.&N. Dec. 413 (1996); Fourth Circuit’s recent Mouns v. Garland, 113 F.4th 399 (4th Cir. 2024)
• Set the standard for prima-facie showings on motions to reopen. The panel underscores that L-O-G-’s “reasonable likelihood” standard is controlling where the noncitizen has never had a merits hearing on the new relief sought.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) PSG Particularity

The panel conducted a de novo review, finding that “return” and “multiple years” are indeterminate—any Honduran deportee, voluntary returnee, or temporary visitor who once lived in the U.S. could qualify, making boundaries unworkably vague. Following Moreno-Osorio, the court reaffirmed that such amorphous formulations fail particularity.

b) Nexus to Mother-based PSG

Applying a deferential substantial-evidence test, the court upheld the BIA’s determination that Troches’ hostility stemmed from a land dispute—an essentially private quarrel—not from Martinez’s familial status. The record showed no threats after 1992 and no contact during Martinez’s 2013 stay in Honduras, undermining nexus.

c) Motion to Reopen for Cancellation of Removal

Here lies the opinion’s precedential core.

Standard Applied: The BIA used language resembling the stricter Coelho test (“would likely change the result”) rather than the “reasonable likelihood” test mandated by L-O-G- for first-instance applications.
Evidentiary Oversight: Martinez proffered new documentary evidence—birth certificates, medical records, tax returns—to show 10 years’ presence, good moral character, lack of disqualifying crimes, and exceptional hardship to qualifying relatives. The panel held that the BIA either “ignored or distorted” this evidence, a classic abuse of discretion.
Two-Step Analysis Required: The court emphasized that the BIA must (1) decide prima-facie statutory eligibility; and (2) if eligibility exists, decide whether to exercise discretion, explicitly addressing §1240.8(d) factors. Skipping or conflating the steps is error unless the Board makes a clear discretionary denial.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

Procedural Safeguards Enhanced: Immigration practitioners now have a foothold to challenge perfunctory BIA denials of reopening motions that fail to discuss submitted evidence.
Lower Prima-Facie Threshold Cemented: The “reasonable likelihood” test is reaffirmed for initial consideration of forms of relief not yet litigated, reducing the evidentiary burden at the reopening stage.
Strategic Implications: Counsel should compile robust supporting affidavits and documentary proof; if the BIA does not explicitly mention them, Martinez provides grounds for remand.
Consistency with Supreme Court’s Wilkinson (2024): By referencing Wilkinson v. Garland (statutory criteria for cancellation), the Fourth Circuit harmonizes circuit precedent with the Supreme Court’s recent guidance on statutory interpretation.
Precedent Value: Although unpublished, Fourth Circuit “unpublished opinions” may be cited for persuasiveness under local Rule 32.1 and will inform BIA practice within the circuit.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group (PSG): A category of people sharing immutable traits (e.g., family ties) that society recognizes as distinct. For asylum, the group must be clearly defined—everyone should know who belongs and who does not.
Particularity: The clarity of a PSG’s boundaries. “Tall people” is too vague; “siblings of police informants in Tegucigalpa born between 1990–2000” is particularized.
Nexus: The causal link between persecution and a protected ground. It is insufficient that a persecutor mentions a family member; the harm must be because of that family relationship.
Motion to Reopen: A request filed with the BIA (or Immigration Judge) to consider new facts or evidence that emerged after the original hearing.
Prima-Facie Eligibility: At the reopening stage, the applicant need only show a “reasonable likelihood” of success, not certainty. Think of it as passing the “could win” (not “will win”) threshold.
Cancellation of Removal (Non-LPR): A discretionary remedy allowing certain non-permanent residents to avoid removal if they meet four statutory requirements and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

5. Conclusion

Martinez v. Bondi reinforces established asylum jurisprudence on PSG particularity and family-based nexus, but its lasting significance lies in sharpening the procedural framework for motions to reopen:

The BIA must apply the “reasonable likelihood” standard for prima-facie eligibility when the noncitizen has not yet presented the new remedy in a full hearing;
It must expressly consider and articulate how the submitted evidence affects both statutory eligibility and the discretionary grant of relief;
Failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion warranting vacatur and remand.

By demanding greater analytical transparency from the BIA, the Fourth Circuit amplifies due-process protections for noncitizens seeking a second chance through cancellation of removal. Practitioners should invoke this precedent to ensure that motions to reopen receive the searching review that the Immigration and Nationality Act—and fundamental fairness—require.