1. Particular Social Groups
The State of the Case law from the
Board of Immigration Appeals and the
Ninth Circuit
By Sabrina Damast

2. Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211,
233 (BIA 1985)
• A particular social group is one whose
members share an immutable characteristic or
a characteristic “that the members of the
group either cannot change, or should not be
required to change because it is fundamental
to their individual identities and consciences.”

3. Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d
1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2000)
• Expands the Acosta definition of a particular
social group to include those “united by a
voluntary association, including a former
association, or by an innate characteristic that
is so fundamental to the identities or
consciences of its members that members
either cannot or should be required to change
it.”

4. Matter of C-A-, 23 I&n Dec. 951, 959-
61 (BIA 2006)
• Adds the criteria of social visibility and
particularity to the definition of a particular
social group

5. Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1081 (9th Cir. 2013)
• PSG: witnesses against gang members in El
Salvador
• Reserved the question of whether
particularity and social visibility are valid
criteria
• Social visibility does not require on-sight
visibility – only requires that other people
understand individuals to be part of a group

6. Henriquez-Rivas: Social Visibility
• Social visibility does not require on-sight visibility –
only requires that other people understand individuals
to be part of a group
• Evidence of societal perceptions are not the exclusive
means of demonstrating social visibility
• Perception of the persecutor may be highly relevant, or
even dispositive, of social visibility
• Other demographic divisions are less relevant – if the
group shares an immutable characteristic, the fact that
they have a variety of other (non-shared)
characteristics or belong to other groups does not
undermine the group

7. Henriquez-Rivas: Particularity
• Question of whether society perceives the
group to have delimited boundaries
• If the persecutor does not actually rely on
specific boundaries or definitions to identify
the group, it may be more difficult to believe
that the individuals are perceived as a group
• Particularity is merely one factor as to
whether a collection of individuals is
considered a particular social group in practice

8. Henriquez-Rivas: Application to the
Facts
• Witnesses testified in court, giving them ocular visibility
• Evidence of social visibility: the existence of a special
witness protection law that protects individuals who testify
against violent criminal elements
• Membership in the group can be delimited and verified
through court records proving who testified against gang
members
• “Our previous cases rejecting as a ‘particular social group’
those acting as government informants are arguably in
conflict with our holding today insofar as they require an
additional element of shared birth, racial or ethnic origin,
or some other innate aspect of homogeneity for the group
to qualify as a ‘particular social group.’”

9. Cordova v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th
Cir. 2013)
• PSG: wealthy, educated landowners in Colombia and Mexico
• Country conditions evidence demonstrates that FARC targets
wealthy landowners in Colombia and that cartels in Mexico
target families who have been land owners for generations
• Rejected the BIA’s determination that the proposed group was
too diverse or broad to be sufficiently particularized with regard
to other characteristics (other than land ownership)
• If landowners are per se a social group under BIA precedent, the
addition of another characteristic (wealth or educational level)
does not undermine the validity of the group

10. Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014) and
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014)
• W-G-R- proposed social group: former
members of the Mara 18 gang in El Salvador
who have renounced their gang membership
• M-E-V-G- proposed social group: Honduran
youth who have been actively recruited by
gangs but who have refused to join because
they oppose gangs

11. Clarification of the Social Visibility
Requirement
• Does not require “ocular” visibility in society –
as such, renamed to “social distinction”
• Instead, it requires that the society in question
perceive the proposed social group as a group.

12. Role of the Persecutor’s Views and Actions in
Establishing Social Distinction
• Persecutor’s perception may be relevant, but
is not sufficient to demonstrate requisite
distinction.
• Persecutor’s actions may cause the individuals
in the group to “experience a sense of ‘group’”
and for society to perceive the group as
distinct in some manner.

13. Other Evidence of Social Distinction
• Country conditions reports, expert witness
testimony, and press accounts of
discriminatory laws and policies, historical
animosities, and the like may establish that a
group exists and is perceived as ‘distinct’ or
‘other’ in a particular society.

14. Clarification of the Particularity
Requirement
• Group must be discrete and have definable
boundaries – it must not be amorphous,
overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.
• Particularity is a question of delineation,
meant to set an outer boundary on the
membership of a proposed group.

15. Society-Specific Nature of the PSG
Analysis
• The Board recognized in both W-G-R- and
M-E-V-G- that both social distinction and
particularity must be analyzed in the context
of the society in question, and thus, a group
that is not cognizable in one society may still
be cognizable in another.

16. Outcome of W-G-R- (former gang
members)
• Group is too diffuse, broad, and subjective to
meet the particularity requirement because it
“could include person of any age, sex, or
background. It is not limited to those who
have had a meaningful involvement with the
gang and would thus consider themselves –
and be considered by others – as ‘former gang
members.’”
• BIA also found that it lacked social distinction

17. Outcome of M-E-V-G- (young men
resisting gang recruitment)
• Board made it pretty clear that it doesn’t think that widespread
gang violence will serve as a ground for asylum. “Although certain
segments of a population may be more susceptible to one type of
criminal activity than another, the residents all generally suffer from
the gang’s criminal efforts to sustain its enterprise in that area. A
national community may struggle with significant social problems
resulting from gangs, but not all societal problems are bases for
asylum.”
• Board noted that it was not rejecting all factual scenarios in gangs
because PSG determinations must be made on a case by case basis.
• Board remanded M-E-V-G-, most likely because the Third Circuit
had previously rejected the Board’s definition of social visibility as
unreasonable, and now the Board wanted to see if its new
definition of social distinction would withstand scrutiny

18. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th
Cir. 2014)
• IJ found Pirir-Boc to be a member of the group of
individuals who took concrete steps to oppose gang
membership and gang authority because he persuaded
his brother to leave the gang and refused to join the
gang. By doing so, he “allied himself with a particular
social group of persons directly in opposition to gang
activities and gang membership.” This group includes
individuals who participate in concerted efforts in
Guatemala to combat gang violence.
• The Board reversed the IJ’s decision, finding the
proposed group not meaningfully distinguishable from
the one rejected in Matter of S-E-G- (youths who have
resisted gang recruitment).

19. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th
Cir. 2014)
• The Ninth Circuit rejected the Board’s decision, noting that the
Board “may not reject a group solely because it had previously
found a similar group in a different society to lack social distinction
or particularity, especially where . . . it is presented with evidence
showing that the proposed group may in fact be recognized by the
relevant society.”
• Evidence of social distinction may include evidence that a given
society has adopted strategies for combating gang violence (i.e.
anti-gang legislation, social rehabilitation programs, and gang
prevention programs) that would result in social recognition of a
proposed group.
• The Ninth Circuit tacitly approved of the IJ’s findings on Pirir-Boc’s
PSG, noting that the “concrete and open steps Pirir-Boc took in
opposition to the gang may fall within the framework” of its
decision in Henriquez-Rivas.

20. Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388
(BIA 2014)
• Board applied the revised social distinction and particularity requirements
to the group comprised of “married women in Guatemala who are unable
to leave their relationship.”
• Shared immutable characteristics: gender AND inability to leave a
marriage
• Particularity: the terms “married,” “women,” and “unable to leave the
relationship” have “commonly accepted definitions within Guatemalan
society.”
• Social distinction: relevant evidence includes “whether the society in
question recognizes the need to offer protection to victims of domestic
violence, including whether the country has criminal laws designed to
protect domestic abuse victims, whether those laws are effectively
enforced and other sociopolitical factors.” In this case, there was
“unrebutted evidence that Guatemala has a culture of ‘machismo and
family violence,” and that there is a lack of police protection for victims of
domestic violence.

21. Practice Tips
• Look for evidence of any societal efforts to
protect your group (i.e. non profit organizations
that provide services to victims of domestic
violence or provide job training to deter youth
from joining gangs).
• Look for evidence of societal opposition to your
persecutor (i.e. special laws criminalizing gang-
related violence more harshly than other crimes
or laws that specifically criminalize domestic
violence as a separate offense)