Carlos Escobar Gomez v. Merrick Garland, 20-1654

Carlos Escobar Gomez, a Salvadoran national, witnessed a murder on Oct. 24, 2013, and was later threatened by a gang member; he fled El Salvador Nov. 23, 2013, and entered the U.S. Jan. 19, 2014.
He conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on fear from witnessing the murder and subsequent gang threats.
The IJ found Escobar Gomez’s proposed particular social group (PSG) “witnesses to a crime” not cognizable, citing concerns about mutability, social visibility, and particularity; the IJ did not evaluate the alternate PSG (“witnesses to a murder in El Salvador”).
The BIA affirmed, concluding the PSG was not particularly defined because it could include both people who report crimes and those who do not; applied same reasoning to the narrower PSG without separate analysis.
The Fourth Circuit granted review, held the BIA abused its discretion by failing to offer a reasoned explanation and by legal error on particularity, and remanded for further proceedings; Judge Wynn concurred (would find the PSG particular) and Judge Wilkinson dissented (would deny review, finding the PSG too amorphous).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed PSG "witnesses to a murder in El Salvador" is defined with sufficient particularity	Escobar: the group has objective, self-limiting boundaries (witness + murder + El Salvador) and thus is particular	Government/BIA: the group is overbroad and vague (includes reporters and non-reporters, visitors, anonymous bystanders)	Fourth Circuit: remanded — BIA failed to explain why the narrower PSG lacked particularity; court did not resolve particularity on merits (majority). Concurrence would find PSG particular; dissent would deny.
Whether the BIA provided a reasoned explanation and applied correct legal standard	Escobar: BIA’s cursory reasoning conflated particularity with other prongs and ignored distinctions between the two PSGs	BIA: its stated ground (lack of limiting features because group includes reporters and non-reporters) supported rejection	Held: BIA abused its discretion for inadequate analysis and legal error; remand required for fuller, reasoned consideration.
Scope of appellate review — may the Court decide other asylum elements not addressed by the agency?	Escobar: Court should only review the agency’s decided ground (particularity)	Government: raised additional arguments not relied upon by the BIA	Held: Court limited to the grounds the agency relied on (particularity); it cannot address unadjudicated elements (e.g., persecution, nexus).

Amaya v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2021) (particularity is definitional; a group can have difficult applications yet still be particular)
Temu v. Holder, 740 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 2014) (particular social group must provide clear benchmark for membership)
Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2012) (rejecting amorphous PSGs tied to resisting gang recruitment)
Crespin‑Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (family unit of prosecutorial witnesses can be particular)
Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (particularity requires an adequate benchmark for membership)
Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2014) (review of BIA when it adopts and supplements IJ decision)
Moreno‑Osorio v. Garland, 2 F.4th 245 (4th Cir. 2021) (rejecting “returning migrants” as insufficiently particular)
Nken v. Holder, 585 F.3d 818 (4th Cir. 2009) (court may only affirm on grounds the agency relied upon)