Nunez Moreno: Group, Briefing and Political-Motive Challenges Failed for Different Reasons

When a gang threatens your family or harms your property, explaining why you need protection can involve several different legal questions. An appeal can fail because an argument was not properly presented, because a proposed group does not qualify under the governing law, or because the evidence does not connect the harm to a protected reason.

Nunez Moreno v. Bondi shows those questions operating separately. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review after addressing social-group claims, briefing failures, political-opinion motive and protection under the Convention Against Torture, or CAT. The separate reasons matter when deciding what an appeal must actually challenge. Nunez Moreno introduces the review standards and claims.

The family’s claims reached the Fifth Circuit

Melvin Geovanny Nunez Moreno, his wife Ana Margarita Hernandez Carranza and their minor daughter Ana Paola Nunez Hernandez are Honduran citizens. The immigration judge denied Moreno’s application, and the BIA affirmed. His wife and daughter were derivative beneficiaries of the asylum claim.

The court reviewed the BIA’s decision and the immigration judge’s reasoning to the extent it influenced the BIA. Legal conclusions received de novo review; factual findings received substantial-evidence review, requiring evidence that compelled a contrary conclusion to overturn them. The panel also rejected Moreno’s objection to the BIA’s use of Fifth Circuit precedent: That circuit’s precedents governed an agency appeal from an immigration judge within the circuit. Nunez Moreno states these rules.

The proposed groups required more than fear of crime

Two groups addressed on review were “Honduran business owners with perceived wealth” and “Honduran men who refuse to participate in gang-related activities on account of moral, religious, and sociopolitical beliefs.” The panel upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the groups were not legally cognizable.

The court relied on its circuit’s cases, including Munoz-De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693 (5th Cir. 2023), concerning Salvadoran business owners, and Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder, 690 F.3d 667, 668 (5th Cir. 2012), concerning wealth. The decision’s reasoning concerns the proposed groups and governing circuit law, rather than a finding that the family’s fear was insincere. Nunez Moreno identifies the authorities.

Other arguments failed because the BIA brief omitted them

Moreno challenged the BIA’s failure to address two additional groups. The BIA had treated them as waived because his brief did not address them, and the court declined to consider them. Separately, he argued that the immigration judge failed to consider his political-opinion claim. He had not briefed that contention to the BIA, and the government invoked the exhaustion requirement. The court declined to consider that argument too.

These were different procedural problems from the merits of the two groups the court reviewed. Nunez Moreno separates the omitted-group arguments from the unexhausted challenge to the immigration judge’s handling of political opinion.

The political-motive finding received separate review

The opinion then addressed Moreno’s nexus challenge: Whether the gang’s threats and harm to his property were connected to his political opinion. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the harm was driven by criminal motives rather than that protected ground. The panel cited Martinez-De Umana v. Garland, 82 F.4th 303, 312 (5th Cir. 2023), in explaining that distinction.

The court therefore treated the complaint that the judge skipped an issue separately from the challenge to the agency’s motive finding. A general reference to political opinion would not explain which of those rulings was being challenged. Nunez Moreno contains the distinct nexus discussion.

CAT required its own showing about torture and officials

For CAT, Moreno had to show that torture was more likely than not with government consent or acquiescence. Under the Fifth Circuit authority the panel applied, governmental inability to protect citizens did not by itself establish acquiescence. The evidence did not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA, and the petition was denied. Nunez Moreno gives the CAT reasoning, with the disposition on the following page.

This Fifth Circuit opinion applies that circuit’s law to the claims described. A California matter needs review under its governing law. Our political-opinion appeal guide explains the practical difference between preserving a specific agency-error argument and supporting the claimed motive for harm.