## Facts

- The lead respondent was a native and citizen of Guatemala, married at age 17, and the mother of three minor children (also respondents).
- During the marriage, her husband repeatedly abused her, including weekly beatings after the first child.
- The abuse included breaking her nose, throwing paint thinner on her (burning her breast), and raping her.
- She sought protection from police multiple times but was told they would not interfere in a marital relationship; on one occasion police responded but did not arrest her husband.
- She tried to leave by staying with her father, but her husband threatened to kill her if she did not return; she later fled to Guatemala City, returned after promises to change, and the abuse resumed.
- The respondents entered the United States without inspection on December 25, 2005, and the lead respondent timely applied for asylum and withholding of removal.

## Issues

1. Whether “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a cognizable particular social group for asylum and withholding of removal.
2. Whether the harm described could qualify as persecution and be “on account of” membership in that group rather than unrelated criminal conduct.
3. Whether the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect the respondent from harm inflicted by a private actor.

## Decision

- The Board sustained the appeal in part and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Board held that, depending on the facts and evidence in the individual case, “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can be a cognizable particular social group.
- The Board concluded the lead respondent was a member of that particular social group on the record presented.
- The Board did not grant asylum or withholding; it directed the immigration judge to address remaining elements, including persecution, nexus, government protection, and any discretionary determinations.

## Legal Principles

- A “particular social group” must be supported by evidence of: (1) an immutable or fundamental characteristic, (2) particularity, and (3) social distinction.
- Gender and marital status may qualify as immutable characteristics; an “inability to leave” may be established by factual, legal, social, and cultural constraints rather than personal preference.
- Particularity requires a group definition with clear boundaries; “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” may satisfy this requirement when supported by record evidence.
- Social distinction may be shown through country conditions and case-specific proof that the society in question recognizes the group as distinct, including evidence of tolerated or normalized domestic violence and inadequate official responses.
- For non-state-actor harm, eligibility may require proof that the government is unable or unwilling to control the persecutor, including evidence of repeated refusals to intervene and systemic enforcement failures.
- Nexus requires proof that membership in the particular social group is at least one central reason for the persecution; domestic violence may meet this standard where the abuse is tied to the victim’s status within the relationship and efforts to leave.

## Conclusion

The Board recognized that a domestic-violence-based group defined as “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can qualify as a particular social group based on case-specific evidence, and it remanded for the immigration judge to resolve the remaining asylum and withholding requirements.


Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (B.I.A. 2014)