Particular Social Group Asylum Claims in 2026: How the BIA and the Third Circuit Decide Them Now

You fled because of a group you belong to, or one someone put you in: a family the gang marked, a marriage you could not leave, a witness seen talking to the police. If that does not fit race, religion, nationality, or political opinion, your asylum case rests on the fifth statutory ground, "membership in a particular social group." As of September 2026 that ground is harder to win than it has been in years. The Attorney General reinstated the Matter of A-B- decisions in September 2025, and the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a run of 2025 and 2026 precedents rejecting specific groups. Here is the test the Philadelphia, Elizabeth, and Newark immigration courts apply, what each recent decision held, and how to build a claim that can survive.

The Three-Part Test Every Social Group Must Pass

The statute never defines "particular social group." The Board supplied the starting point in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985): a group of persons who share a "common, immutable characteristic," one that members either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their identities or consciences. The Board gave examples: sex, color, kinship ties, and in some cases a shared past experience such as former military leadership or land ownership.

In 2014 the Board restated the full test. Under Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and its companion Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014), an applicant must show that the group is:

• Immutable: composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic.
• Particular: defined with particularity, meaning discrete, with definable boundaries, and not "amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective."
• Socially distinct: recognized as a group by the society in question. M-E-V-G- renamed the old "social visibility" element to make clear that it does not mean literal, ocular visibility, and held that the society's perception controls, not the persecutor's.

Every element is required. Many claims fail on particularity (the words have no clear edges) or on social distinction (the persecutor noticed the applicant, but nothing shows society sees the group as a group). M-E-V-G- came on remand from the Third Circuit, which had refused to defer to the Board's earlier version of the test in Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General, 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011).

Nexus and the Government's Role

A valid group is only the first step. The applicant must also show that membership in the group "was or will be at least one central reason" for the persecution, INA 208(b)(1)(B)(i). The Board and the Attorney General read that phrase through a two-part test stated in Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (known as A-B- II): the protected ground must be a but-for cause of the harm, and it must play more than a minor role, meaning it cannot be incidental or tangential to another reason.

That test decides many gang cases: the Board may find that recruitment and control, not family, were the central reasons, as it did in Matter of S-E-M-Z-, 29 I&N Dec. 680 (BIA 2026), discussed below.

The second hurdle applies when the persecutor is a private person, such as an abusive partner or a gang. The government must have been unable or unwilling to control the persecutor. Under A-B- II, if the government has tried to prevent the violence, failures in particular cases or high crime do not by themselves show a breach of its duty to protect. Recent Board decisions look closely at whether the applicant reported the harm and what the State Department report says about police response.

Domestic Violence Claims: A-B- Is Back

In Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), the Board recognized "married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship" as a particular social group. In Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (A-B- I), Attorney General Sessions overruled A-R-C-G-. He held that a group must exist independently of the harm asserted, that the applicant must clearly delineate the proposed group on the record, and that adjudicators must consider internal relocation. He also wrote that such claims based on private domestic or gang violence generally will not qualify, without holding they never can. A-B- II followed in January 2021. In Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (A-B- III), Attorney General Garland vacated both and told judges to follow pre-A-B- I precedent, including A-R-C-G-, pending a rulemaking.

That rulemaking never happened. On September 2, 2025, in Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025), Attorney General Bondi overruled A-B- III and, "by extension," A-R-C-G- and any decision issued in reliance on it, and instructed immigration judges and the Board to adhere to A-B- I and A-B- II "in all pending or future cases." That is the law in immigration court as of September 2026.

The Board has since applied it. In Matter of V-A-B-, 29 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2026), it held that "married Mexican women who are unable to leave their relationship" is not cognizable because it is circularly defined (the inability to leave is created by the harm) and lacks particularity. It rejected the argument that A-B- I could not be applied to a case already pending, calling it a clarification rather than an abrupt departure. It also reversed the judge's findings on government protection and internal relocation.

For a survivor, a group defined by the abuse itself will fail, but that does not end every claim. The facts may support a different protected ground, a differently defined group, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Family-Based and Gang-Related Groups

Acosta named kinship ties as immutable; the fight is over particularity and social distinction for a specific family. On September 2, 2025, the same day as S-S-F-M-, the Attorney General decided Matter of R-E-R-M- & J-D-R-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 202 (A.G. 2025). It overruled the 2021 Attorney General decision that had vacated the 2019 decision in Matter of L-E-A-, and directed judges to follow the 2019 decision's holding: kinship ties form a particular social group only where the group is defined with particularity and is socially distinct in the society in question, as perceived by society in general and not just by the persecutors.

S-E-M-Z- applied that rule in June 2026. A Honduran mother who opposed MS-13's recruitment of her daughter was threatened, and a nephew who helped rescue the daughter was murdered. The immigration judge found a family-based group, relying on evidence that people in Honduran neighborhoods know each other's families. The Board reversed, holding that social distinction must generally be measured on a countrywide basis, not from the perspective of a neighborhood or other limited area. It also held there was no nexus: the gang's goals of recruitment and control were the central reasons, and the murder of a nephew outside the immediate family showed the gang targeted anyone in its way.

Gang-related groups face a parallel line. In Matter of L-A-L-T-, 29 I&N Dec. 269 (BIA 2025), the Board held that "perceived Salvadoran gang members" is not cognizable, and that perceived or imputed membership works only if the underlying group is itself cognizable. In Matter of D-G-E-A- & N-G-G-E-, 29 I&N Dec. 570 (BIA 2026), it held that disapproval of or opposition to criminal gangs is not enough to establish a political opinion; the belief must concern a discrete cause tied to a government, including a de facto government.

Is your asylum case built on a particular social group?

The rules changed in September 2025 and again with each 2026 Board decision. We review how your group is written, the evidence behind it, and your withholding and CAT claims before the individual hearing.

Talk to an Asylum Attorney

Or call (484) 763-4984

Other Recent Board Decisions That Narrowed the Field

Matter of K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2025). A group defined by sex, or by sex and nationality, standing alone, is overbroad and insufficiently particular. The Board rejected "Salvadoran women" and "Salvadoran women viewed as property." In a footnote it said the holding does not affect the viability of claims involving female genital mutilation.

Matter of L-A-D-, 29 I&N Dec. 634 (BIA 2026). "Mexican men with Schizoaffective Disorder," defined only by a diagnosis, is not cognizable. An applicant may narrow a diagnosis with clearly defined symptoms he actually exhibits, and social distinction turns on how society, not doctors, sees the group.

Matter of A-G-O-F-, 29 I&N Dec. 772 (BIA 2026). "Brazilian children" and "abandoned Brazilian children" lack particularity; "abandoned" was not defined in the record. The Board also found the government was not shown to be unable or unwilling to protect, because it had arrested one perpetrator and provides services for abused children, and so reversed a grant of humanitarian asylum.

The pattern is consistent. In V-A-B-, L-A-D-, S-E-M-Z-, and A-G-O-F-, the immigration judge had granted protection, DHS appealed, the Board reversed, and the case went back for the judge to decide protection under the Convention Against Torture. A grant is not safe while an appeal is possible, so the hearing record must be built for the Board.

What the Third Circuit Has Said

Cases from the Philadelphia, Elizabeth, and Newark courts go to the Third Circuit on a petition for review. Its precedent binds those judges, and in places it differs from the Board.

The test itself. In S.E.R.L. v. Attorney General, 894 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2018), the court accepted the Board's three-part test after the Board revised it in M-E-V-G- and W-G-R-, and denied the petition of a Honduran woman whose proposed group was "immediate family members of Honduran women unable to leave a domestic relationship," finding nothing that compelled the conclusion that Honduran society perceives that group as distinct.

Groups defined by sex. In Chavez-Chilel v. Attorney General, 20 F.4th 138 (3d Cir. 2021), the court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that "Guatemalan women" is not a particular social group. It said the size of a group alone would not disqualify it, but found no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in their being targeted.

Witnesses. In Guzman Orellana v. Attorney General, 956 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2020), the court held that persons who publicly provide assistance to law enforcement against major Salvadoran gangs constitute a particular social group, meeting all three elements, and that membership can be imputed. Nexus and government protection went back to the Board.

Nexus. In Tipan Lopez v. Attorney General, No. 24-1444 (3d Cir. June 30, 2025), a precedential opinion, the court remanded a religion-based claim with instructions that the Board not apply a subordination-based test, which rejects a protected ground as a central reason if it is subordinate to an unprotected reason, or an animus-based test requiring hostility toward the protected ground. The Board itself acknowledged in S-E-M-Z- (citing Ndayshimiye v. Attorney General, 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009)) that the Third Circuit does not accept its "subordinate" language, which can matter in a mixed-motive case.

Preservation. In A.G.-G. v. Attorney General, No. 24-2559 (3d Cir. July 24, 2025), a precedential opinion, the court held that a Board summary affirmance does not revive claims that were not raised to the Board. Once the government raises exhaustion, an argument not made to the Board is lost.

A search of the court's published opinions from 2025 through mid-September 2026 found no precedential Third Circuit decision yet applying S-S-F-M- or the 2026 Board cases to a social group question. Check the latest opinions before briefing.

Define the Group Early and Prove It With Evidence

Delineate the group before the judge. Under Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018), an applicant must clearly indicate on the record before the immigration judge the exact delineation of any proposed group, and the Board generally will not address a new group first raised on appeal. A-B- I says the same.

Draft groups that exist independently of the harm. After V-A-B-, any wording that describes the persecution ("unable to leave," "targeted by," "victims of") invites a circularity finding. Anchor the group in characteristics that existed before the harm, with terms that have a defined meaning in the country.

Prove social distinction at the country level. M-E-V-G- identified the kind of proof that can establish social distinction: country conditions reports, expert witness testimony, and press accounts of discriminatory laws and policies and historical animosities. After S-E-M-Z-, evidence that neighbors knew your family is not enough; the question is how the national society sees the group. Laws that single the group out, as the Salvadoran witness protection statute did in Guzman Orellana, are strong evidence. See our guide to documenting country conditions.

Tie the evidence to nexus and protection. What did the persecutor say? Did you report the harm, and if not, what shows reporting would have been futile or dangerous? These are the facts the Board found missing in V-A-B- and A-G-O-F-. Our post on filing a defensive I-589 in immigration court covers the filing mechanics, and the one-year filing deadline and its exceptions must be addressed before any of this matters for asylum.

Withholding and CAT When Asylum Is Uncertain

Statutory withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) uses the same five protected grounds, so a group that fails for asylum also fails for withholding. The standard is higher: the applicant must show it is more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground, 8 CFR 1208.16(b)(2). Withholding is not subject to the one-year asylum deadline. See our explainer on withholding of removal.

Protection under the Convention Against Torture has no protected ground requirement at all. The applicant must show it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed, 8 CFR 1208.16(c)(2), by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. When a social group theory is weak, CAT is often where the case is really decided, and each 2026 decision above that reversed a grant ended with a remand to consider it.

The Board appeal deadline has been in flux. A February 2026 interim rule, 91 FR 5267, would have cut it to 10 days in most cases; a federal court set that aside in March 2026 (Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, D.D.C.), and 30 days again applies. The government has appealed, so confirm the deadline the day the decision issues, and raise every issue you want preserved. Our guide to appealing an immigration judge's decision to the BIA explains the process.

What This Means in the Lehigh Valley

Most removal cases for families in Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and Reading are heard at the Philadelphia Immigration Court, and many New Jersey cases at the Elizabeth and Newark courts. All three sit within the Third Circuit, so Guzman Orellana, Chavez-Chilel, S.E.R.L., and Tipan Lopez apply alongside the Board and Attorney General precedents. Under 8 CFR 1003.1(g) these precedents also bind DHS officers, so they shape affirmative asylum interviews too.

A case prepared in 2023 or 2024 around A-R-C-G- or a broadly worded family group should be reviewed now, because S-S-F-M- applies to pending cases. For families whose relative already won, our companion post on the green card after asylum explains the next step. Our Allentown asylum practice handles both affirmative and defensive cases.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still get asylum based on domestic violence in 2026?

It is harder, but the Attorney General has not said such claims can never succeed. Matter of S-S-F-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 207 (A.G. 2025), reinstated A-B- I and A-B- II and overruled A-R-C-G-, and the Board held in Matter of V-A-B- that a group defined by being unable to leave a relationship is circular. A claim needs a group that exists independently of the abuse, proof the government was unable or unwilling to protect, and a strong CAT record.

Is "women from my country" a particular social group?

Not before the Board. Matter of K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145 (BIA 2025), held that a group defined by sex, or sex and nationality, standing alone, is overbroad and insufficiently particular, and the Third Circuit upheld the rejection of "Guatemalan women" in Chavez-Chilel. K-E-S-G- said its holding does not affect claims involving female genital mutilation.

Does my family count as a particular social group?

It can, but only if the specific family is defined with particularity and recognized as distinct by society at large, not just by the persecutor. Matter of R-E-R-M- & J-D-R-M- (A.G. 2025) restored that rule, and Matter of S-E-M-Z- (BIA 2026) held that recognition within a neighborhood is not enough. You also must show family membership was a central reason for the harm.

Can I change my particular social group on appeal?

Generally no. Under Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 189 (BIA 2018), the exact group must be stated on the record before the immigration judge, and the Board generally will not consider a new group raised for the first time on appeal. Settle the formulations before the individual hearing.

What happens if my social group is rejected?

Asylum and withholding on that ground fail, but other claims remain. You may have another protected ground, and protection under the Convention Against Torture has no protected ground requirement. In several 2026 decisions the Board reversed a grant and sent the case back for the judge to decide CAT. A denial can also be appealed to the Board, generally within 30 days; confirm the deadline as soon as the decision issues.

Get Help With a Particular Social Group Asylum Claim

Lehigh Valley Immigration Law LLC prepares asylum, withholding, and CAT cases before the Philadelphia, Elizabeth, and Newark immigration courts and handles appeals to the Board and petitions for review in the Third Circuit. We offer a free bilingual consultation to review your facts, your group formulations, and your evidence. Call (484) 763-4984 or contact us online. No attorney can guarantee the outcome of any asylum case, but a claim built for the law as it stands today has the best chance of being heard on its merits.