Hector Tipan Lopez v. Attorney General United States of America
142 F.4th 162
| 3rd Cir. | 2025Background
- Hector David Tipan Lopez, an indigenous Evangelical Christian from Ecuador, faced repeated violent persecution by the Lobos gang due to his evangelizing and efforts to deter drug use, which threatened the gang's drug trade.
- Tipan Lopez entered the U.S. in 2023 seeking asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging religious, racial, and political grounds.
- Both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found that his persecution was primarily motivated by the gang's financial interests rather than any protected grounds, and denied all relief.
- The BIA's decision relied on certain legal standards about the "nexus" requirement (connection between persecution and a protected ground), which the Third Circuit had disapproved in prior cases.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether the BIA applied the correct legal standards for evaluating the religious nexus and whether substantial evidence supported findings on all protected grounds and the CAT claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct legal standard for religious nexus | BIA used impermissible "subordination" and "animus"-based standards; religious motive need not be dominant nor based on hatred | BIA applied proper standard, focusing on central rather than incidental motives | Remanded: BIA applied wrong legal standards, must reconsider without subordination or animus tests |
| Nexus to race | Persecution partly racial due to use of slurs and indigenous discrimination evidence | Racial factors were at most incidental or superficial to financial motives | Denied: Substantial evidence supports finding race was not a central reason |
| Nexus to political opinion | Anti-drug activism constituted anti-gang political activity persecuted by gang | Gang did not perceive or target Tipan Lopez for political opinions | Denied: Substantial evidence supports finding no political opinion nexus |
| CAT—government acquiescence to torture | Ecuador incapable of preventing likely torture by gangs, despite government efforts | Ecuador tries to combat gangs; petitioner did not show official acquiescence | Remanded: BIA must determine whether Ecuador can actually protect petitioner, not just its efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ndayshimiye v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (rejects subordination-based test for nexus; mixed-motive persecution can have multiple central reasons)
- Ghanem v. Att'y Gen., 14 F.4th 237 (3d Cir. 2021) (motivation of persecutor is key; central reason need not be dominant)
- Gonzalez-Posadas v. Att'y Gen., 781 F.3d 677 (3d Cir. 2015) (protected ground must be essential or principal, but not the sole reason)
- Thayalan v. Att'y Gen., 997 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2021) (expounds on 'one central reason' test requirements)
- Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (political opinion persecution requires persecutor's awareness)
- Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (CAT 'more likely than not' standard explained)
- Quinteros v. Att’y Gen., 945 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 2019) (acquiescence under CAT requires actual ability to prevent, not just government intent)
- Gomez-Zuluaga v. Att’y Gen., 527 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2008) (willful blindness/acquiescence analysis under the CAT)