Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103

Background

Petitioner Xavier Pucha Quituizaca, an Ecuadorian national who entered the U.S. without inspection, conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
He alleged two robberies/attacks (2003 and 2005) by an Ecuadorian gang that he claims targeted him because he is indigenous Quechua; his written submissions said the gang used ethnic slurs, but his live testimony did not.
The IJ denied asylum and withholding (proposed social group deemed too diffuse) and denied CAT relief for lack of government acquiescence; the IJ’s explicit credibility finding was lacking.
The BIA assumed Quituizaca was credible, declined to remand for an explicit credibility finding, and affirmed denial of asylum and withholding after applying the asylum statute’s “one central reason” motive standard to withholding claims.
The BIA also found Quituizaca waived his CAT claim by failing to challenge the IJ’s CAT ruling before the BIA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motive standard for withholding of removal	Withholding requires only that a protected ground be “a reason” for persecution (lower than asylum’s standard).	The REAL ID amendments and agency precedent support applying asylum’s “at least one central reason” standard to withholding.	The statute is ambiguous; BIA’s adoption of the “one central reason” standard is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.
Sufficiency of evidence that ethnicity motivated harm	Quituizaca argued gang targeted him because he was Quechua (citing application and affidavit).	Government: record shows criminal motive (robbery) and testimony lacked contemporaneous ethnic statements; evidence does not show ethnicity was one central reason.	Substantial evidence supports BIA: petitioner failed to show ethnicity was one central reason for past or likely future persecution; asylum and withholding properly denied.
Waiver of CAT claim	Quituizaca contended he sought CAT relief before the IJ.	Government: petitioner did not raise the CAT claim to the BIA in briefing, so issue was waived.	Court held Quituizaca waived the CAT claim for failing to administratively exhaust before the BIA.
BIA’s credibility/factfinding	Petitioner argued BIA erred by not making an explicit credibility finding and by reaching ethnicity claims IJ did not adequately analyze.	BIA had assumed credibility for purposes of decision and relied on IJ’s record; petitioner failed to preserve a challenge to BIA factfinding.	No reversible error: BIA’s assumption of credibility stood and petitioner waived any argument that the BIA engaged in improper factfinding.

Key Cases Cited

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (establishes framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretations)
Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (limits and clarifies deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous rules)
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (distinguishes asylum’s well-founded fear standard from withholding’s higher probability standard)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (interprets “because of” as requiring but-for causation in statutory contexts)
Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (reaffirms but-for causation principle for statutes using “because of”)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (discusses causal nexus requirement in INA claims)
Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994) (notes withholding requires a stricter showing than asylum)
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (interprets REAL ID Act motive questions for withholding)
Guzman-Vazquez v. Barr, 959 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2020) (adopts a less stringent “a reason” interpretation for withholding in dissenting/majority contexts cited)
Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2020) (discusses objective evidence for withholding and relevance of past persecution)