## Facts

- M-E-V-G- is a native and citizen of Honduras who sought asylum and withholding of removal.
- He alleged that MS-13 gang members beat him, kidnaped and assaulted him and his family while traveling in Guatemala, and threatened to kill him if he refused to join the gang.
- He claimed persecution based on membership in a proposed particular social group tied to Honduran youth targeted for resisting gang recruitment or associated anti-gang youth activity.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief, finding no sufficient connection to a protected ground and rejecting the proposed social group.
- The Board previously affirmed, relying on “particularity” and “social visibility,” but the Third Circuit remanded for a fuller explanation of those requirements.

## Issues

1. What legal standard governs whether a proposed group qualifies as a “particular social group” for asylum and withholding of removal.
2. Whether “social visibility” requires literal, on-sight identifiability, and how that concept should be stated.
3. Whether particular social group cognizability is assessed from the viewpoint of the persecutor or the relevant society.

## Decision

- The Board clarified its interpretation of “particular social group” and renamed the “social visibility” requirement as “social distinction.”
- The Board held that a cognizable particular social group must be: (1) based on a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.
- The Board emphasized that social group recognition turns on the perception of the relevant society, not the persecutor, though persecutor evidence may be probative.
- The Board did not finally decide whether the respondent’s proposed group satisfied the clarified requirements or whether nexus was established.
- The case was remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings under the clarified standard.

## Legal Principles

- A “particular social group” requires proof of: (1) a common immutable characteristic, (2) particularity, and (3) social distinction within the society in question.
- “Social distinction” concerns whether the society generally recognizes the group as a distinct class; it does not require literal or ocular visibility.
- “Particularity” requires discrete, objective boundaries so the group is not amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.
- Cognizability of the group (group definition) is distinct from the “on account of” requirement (nexus), which focuses on the persecutor’s motive.
- Evidence about how persecutors view targets may inform social distinction but does not control whether the group exists for asylum purposes.

## Conclusion

The Board reaffirmed and clarified its particular social group framework by replacing “social visibility” with “social distinction,” adopting a three-part test of immutability, particularity, and social distinction measured by societal perception, and remanded for application of that standard to the respondent’s gang-related claim.


Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (B.I.A. 2014)