United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 25-1351
LESVI LUCIA MONZON GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE,* Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Aframe, Howard, and Dunlap,
Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Ng, Omar Rahman, Abdul Wahab Niaz, Bhuvanyaa Vijay,
and Law Offices of Johanna M. Herrero, on brief for petitioner.
Christina R. Zeidan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Division, and Lisa M. Arnold, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for
respondent.
August 7, 2026
* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is automatically
substituted for former Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi as
Respondent.
AFRAME, Circuit Judge. Lesvi Lucia Monzon Guzman is a
Salvadoran citizen. She brings a petition for review challenging
the Board of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") dismissal of her appeal
from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for
asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to the Immigration and
Nationality Act. Monzon argues, inter alia, that the BIA wrongly
concluded that there was no nexus between her claims of persecution
and a statutorily protected ground. Because substantial evidence
supports the BIA's no-nexus conclusion, we deny the petition.
I.
A.
Monzon entered the United States on May 15, 2015. On
July 31, 2017, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
encountered and arrested her. The Department of Homeland Security
issued Monzon a Notice to Appear the next day and initiated removal
proceedings. A few months later, on October 9, 2017, Monzon
applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.1
In her application, Monzon explained that she feared harm from her
sister's former romantic partner and that she was not aware she
had to file for asylum within a year of her arrival in the United
States.
1 The application was formally filed with the IJ on January 2, 2020.
- 2 -Monzon submitted sworn affidavits and testified in
support of her claims before the IJ, who found her to be credible.
We summarize that evidence here. See Barnica-Lopez v. Garland, 59
F.4th 520, 525 n.1 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that we draw the facts
from the administrative record).
While living in El Salvador, Monzon was robbed three
times. The first robbery occurred in June 2014, when two gang
members held Monzon at knifepoint on a bus and proceeded to take
her money and phone. The second robbery occurred in December of
that year, when a gang member took Monzon's cell phone while she
walked home. The final robbery took place a month later, in
January 2015, at a shopping center. Monzon was shopping for a new
cell phone card when armed gang members robbed the store and all
its customers. During that robbery, one gang member pointed a gun
at Monzon's head and threatened her by asking "[d]o you want us to
kill you, bitch?" Monzon acknowledged that her experiences were
not unique, as gangs commonly rob people in El Salvador.
Monzon did not report any of the robberies she
experienced to the police because she knew people who had been
retaliated against by the gangs after making such reports and
because she believes the police in El Salvador never arrest gang
members. Soon after, Monzon decided to leave for the United States
and entered the country without inspection on May 15, 2015.
- 3 -In December 2016, over a year and a half after Monzon's
entry, Monzon's then-five-year-old niece was sexually assaulted by
the niece's father, Juan Carlos Campos Jurado, in El Salvador.
Campos was in a relationship with Monzon's sister, Karen. When
Karen called Monzon to tell her about the assault, Monzon insisted
that Karen report Campos to the police. Campos was a "dangerous
and violent man" whose uncle was a member of the MS-13 gang. After
Karen reported Campos to the authorities, Campos's uncle initiated
him into MS-13 for his protection. Campos threatened Karen,
Karen's daughters, and Monzon because of Karen's report. Karen
and her daughters then joined Monzon in the United States.
Meanwhile, Campos continued to threaten Monzon and Karen through
social media.
Later, when asked by the government why she did not file
her asylum application until October 9, 2017, when the events
surrounding her niece's sexual assault had occurred in December
2016, Monzon said it was because she "hadn't had any problems with
immigration" authorities when the events involving Campos took
place.
B.
As is pertinent to this appeal, the IJ rejected Monzon's
claims for asylum and withholding of removal but did not address
- 4 -her humanitarian asylum claim.2 The IJ concluded that the asylum
claim failed for two independent reasons. First, the IJ determined
Monzon's asylum application was time-barred. Second, the IJ found
that Monzon had failed to establish a nexus between the violence
and threats she faced and a protected category because (1) the
violence Monzon endured in El Salvador was motivated by the
perpetrators' desire to obtain property from her, such as her money
and phone, rather than because of Monzon's membership in a
particular social group, and (2) there was insufficient evidence
to characterize her niece's sexual assault as anything other than
"an odious crime of interpersonal violence." The IJ also rejected
Monzon's withholding of removal claim because (1) it too required
persecution to be on account of a protected ground and (2) had a
more stringent standard than asylum.
Monzon appealed to the BIA. Among other claims, she
argued that the IJ failed to conduct a "mixed motive" analysis
when assessing whether a nexus existed between the harms identified
and a statutorily protected ground. According to Monzon, even if
none of the statutorily protected grounds she identified were the
sole reason for the asserted harm, at least one was a central
2 The IJ also denied Monzon CAT protection because she
failed to show that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured upon her return to El Salvador. Monzon has not presented a developed argument in this Court about the CAT claim, so we do
not discuss it further. See Yong Gao v. Barr, 950 F.3d 147, 154
(1st Cir. 2020) (deeming undeveloped CAT argument waived).
- 5 -reason. The BIA rejected this argument, stating that Monzon failed
to show that a protected ground was a central reason for the
conduct about which she complained. The BIA also denied Monzon's
humanitarian asylum claim for the same reason.
II.
In her petition, Monzon argues that the BIA
(1) erroneously concluded that her asylum application was untimely
and (2) did not conduct a proper mixed-motive analysis when it
concluded that there was no nexus between the alleged persecution
and a protected category. We bypass the timeliness claim because
the BIA's supportable no-nexus ruling is dispositive.
In circumstances such as this, where "the BIA accepts
the IJ's findings and reasoning yet adds its own gloss, [this Court
will] review the two decisions as a unit." Xian Tong Dong v.
Holder, 696 F.3d 121, 123 (1st Cir. 2012); see Zaruma-Guaman v.
Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2021) ("In this case, the BIA
relied largely on the IJ's decision. Following a well-beaten path,
we treat the BIA's decision and the IJ's decision as a unit in
connection with our review."). We refer to the BIA and the IJ
collectively as the "agency."
We review the BIA's "legal conclusions de novo" and the
agency's "findings of fact under the 'substantial evidence'
standard." Aguilar-Escoto v. Garland, 59 F.4th 510, 515 (1st Cir.
2023) (quoting second Xin Qiang Liu v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 69, 74 (1st
- 6 -Cir. 2015)). We consider the determination that there was no nexus
between the complained-of conduct and a protected category under
the substantial evidence standard. See De La Cruz-Quispe v. Bondi,
161 F.4th 17, 23 (1st Cir. 2025). Under that standard, we "defer
to the BIA's findings of fact 'unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.'" Ruiz v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
III.
To obtain asylum, an applicant "must prove either past
persecution, which gives rise to an inference of future
persecution, or establish a well[-]founded fear of future
persecution on account of her race, religion, nationality,
membership in a social group, or political opinion." Hem v.
Mukasey, 514 F.3d 67, 69 (1st Cir. 2008). The protected ground
must be "at least one central reason" for the persecution.
Esteban-Garcia v. Garland, 94 F.4th 186, 192 (1st Cir. 2024)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)). "The 'one central reason'
test allows for 'the possibility that multiple motivations can
exist' for persecution." Lopez-Martinez v. Blanche, 173 F.4th
362, 369 (1st Cir. 2026) (quoting Khalil v. Garland, 97 F.4th 54,
62 (1st Cir. 2024)). However, while multiple motivations can
exist, "the protected ground must be more than 'incidental,
tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for
[the] harm' to qualify as 'one central reason.'" Barnica-Lopez,
- 7 -59 F.4th at 531 (quoting Sanchez-Vasquez v. Garland, 994 F.3d 40,
47 (1st Cir. 2021)).
Monzon contends that the agency wrongly disregarded
evidence that she was persecuted because of her gender, familial
ties, and political opinions.3 We address these contentions in
turn.
According to Monzon, the robber's use of the slur "bitch"
during the January 2015 robbery demonstrates a gender-based
motive. However, the record supports the agency's conclusion that
the only reason, central or otherwise, that Monzon was targeted by
gang members during those robberies was for financial gain. Each
time Monzon was robbed, the gang members wanted items of pecuniary
value -- such as her money and phone -- which does not support the
notion that Monzon was targeted based on a protected ground. See
Lopez-Castro v. Holder, 577 F.3d 49, 54 (1st Cir. 2009) ("Threats
'motivated . . . by greed' lack adequate nexus to any statutorily
3 Monzon also claims that the BIA incorrectly evaluated
the merits of her asylum claim under the 'clear error' standard of review instead of reviewing it de novo. We disagree. The BIA is
entitled to a presumption of regularity in its proceedings such
that "it need not recite the familiar incantations 'clear error'
or 'de novo' in reaching its decision." Leao v. Bondi, 144 F.4th
43, 52 (1st Cir. 2025). In any event, the BIA correctly stated
that it reviews "for clear error the findings of fact . . . [and] . . . de novo questions of law . . . ." Additionally, because other portions of the BIA opinion clearly
express when it is applying clear error review, we can safely
assume the BIA reviewed de novo the merits of Monzon's asylum
claim.
- 8 -protected ground." (quoting Ruiz, 526 F.3d at 36–37). Furthermore,
during the third robbery, the robbers targeted the store and robbed
every customer, not just Monzon. See Matter of M-E-V-G, 26 I. &
N. Dec. 227, 235 (BIA 2014) ("[A]sylum and refugee laws do not
protect people from general conditions of strife, such as crime
and other societal afflictions."). On this evidence, the fact
that the robber used a gendered pejorative during the commission
of one robbery is not enough to compel the conclusion that gender
was a central reason for Monzon being harmed.
Monzon next argues that Campos, an MS-13 gang member,
targeted her because she is related to Karen. However, the record
supports the agency's conclusion that Monzon's familial ties are
not a reason for the harm inflicted by Campos. Specifically, the
record shows that Campos targeted Monzon to seek revenge. Monzon
urged Karen to report Campos to the police, and Campos was aware
of that fact. Campos only started to threaten Monzon "when he
found out that [she] . . . was the one who convinced [Karen] to
report him." This timing supports the BIA's conclusion that Campos
was motivated by his anger toward Monzon for encouraging Karen to
report him to the authorities. See Marín-Portillo v. Lynch, 834
F.3d 99, 101-103 (1st Cir. 2016) (finding no nexus where revenge,
not familial ties, was the primary motivation for the asserted
persecution in part because the perpetrator knew the petitioner
had taken steps to hold the perpetrator accountable for his
- 9 -crimes). This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Karen and
Monzon have other family members still living in El Salvador whom
Campos has not harmed, suggesting that familial ties to Karen or
her niece are not at the root of the asserted persecution. See
Penafiel-Peralta v. Garland, 115 F.4th 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2024) ("For
family membership to serve as the required statutorily protected
ground, it must be at the root of the persecution, so that family
membership itself brings about the persecutorial conduct."
(citation modified)).
Finally, Monzon asserts that her political beliefs are
another central reason for her persecution. She claims to hold an
anti-gang, pro-rule-of-law political opinion and believes that men
should be held accountable for sexual crimes. However, Monzon has
alleged only that she was subjected to economic crime and is being
threatened by Campos. For the reasons already explained, the
record supports the conclusion that neither Monzon's victimization
by economic crime nor Campos' threats are connected to her
ideological opposition to gangs. See Lopez-Martinez, 173 F.4th at
369 (noting that political opinion claims require the applicant to
prove that the persecution was because of that political belief).
Indeed, when Monzon originally drew Campos's ire by urging Karen
to report him to the police, Campos was not yet a member of the
MS-13 gang.
- 10 -Monzon also makes claims of future persecution based on
her gender, familial ties, and political views. Like her claims
of past persecution, Monzon's fears of future persecution are
largely centered on Campos and widespread criminal activity in El
Salvador. For the same reasons stated previously, Monzon has
failed to demonstrate a connection between any well-founded fear
of future persecution and a statutorily protected group. Monzon's
generalized claims about conditions in El Salvador without
specific connections to her own well-founded fears of persecution
are inadequate to compel a finding in her favor. See, e.g.,
Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi, 146 F.4th 26, 33 (1st Cir. 2025) (finding
reliance on generalized facts about country conditions
insufficiently particularized to establish nexus).
Monzon's failure to demonstrate nexus means that her
asylum claim fails.4 Accordingly, Monzon's withholding of removal
claim also fails because it likewise requires a showing of nexus.
See Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 85–86 (1st Cir. 2007). The
burden of proof for withholding of removal is also higher than it
4 Monzon claims that the agency committed error requiring
remand when it neglected to clarify whether the severity of harm
that she experienced amounted to past persecution. This claim fails because in asylum cases, the lack of nexus is dispositive.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (mandating the persecution be "on
account of" a protected ground); see also Marín-Portillo, 834 F.3d at 101-03 (denying asylum solely due to lack of nexus and
explicitly stating that the severity of the petitioner's harm need not be addressed).
- 11 -is for asylum. See id. ("This 'more likely than not' standard is
harder . . . to satisfy than the 'reasonable possibility'
standard . . . in asylum cases.").5
We conclude by addressing Monzon's claim for
humanitarian asylum. Monzon claims that the IJ's failure expressly
to address her humanitarian asylum claim constitutes legal error
warranting remand. However, when the IJ has found there is no
nexus establishing persecution, it need not reach the question of
the applicant's humanitarian asylum. See De La Cruz-Quispe, 161
F.4th at 22 n.2.
Absent a well-founded fear of persecution, an applicant
may still be granted humanitarian asylum. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). The applicant must demonstrate either
"compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to
return . . . arising out of the severity of the past persecution"
or "that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she may
suffer other serious harm upon removal . . . ." Id.
§§ (b)(1)(iii)(A), (B). Persecution is a prerequisite to qualify
for humanitarian asylum under either method. See Martínez-Pérez
5 "There is a circuit split regarding whether the 'one
central reason' test applies to withholding of removal claims or
whether a more lenient 'a reason' standard applies."
Lopez-Martinez, 173 F.4th 362, 369 n.6 (quoting Pineda-Maldonado
v. Garland, 91 F.4th 76, 90 n.5 (1st Cir. 2024)). We need not
resolve the issue here because the record supports the BIA's
conclusion that the protected grounds Monzon proffered were not
reasons for her harm at all.
- 12 -v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 33, 42 (1st Cir. 2018) (determining that
"subsection (b)(1)(iii) d[id] not apply" because the petitioner
"failed to show . . . persecution"). That persecution must be "on
account of a protected ground." De La Cruz-Quispe, 161 F.4th at
22 n.2. Because Monzon was unable to show the nexus necessary to
establish persecution, she cannot qualify for humanitarian asylum.6
IV.
For these reasons, we deny the petition.
6 At the close of her brief, Monzon argues she was denied
due process because the agency used incorrect legal standards and summarily denied her relief, warranting remand. This claim is largely a repackaging of her prior claims and fails for the reasons already discussed.
- 13 -