W-Y-C-& H-O-B, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189

Respondents: a Honduran mother and her minor son conceded removable after entering without admission; relief is sought by the mother.
Before the Immigration Judge (IJ), the mother claimed asylum/withholding based on membership in the particular social group: “single Honduran women age 14 to 30 who are victims of sexual abuse within the family and who cannot turn to the government.”
The IJ found that the articulated group was not cognizable and that the harm she suffered/fears was not inflicted on account of membership in that group, and denied asylum and withholding.
On appeal, the respondent conceded the below group is not a valid particular social group and instead advanced for the first time a different group: “Honduran women and girls who cannot sever family ties.”
The Board declined to consider the newly articulated group because it was not raised below, would require factfinding the IJ did not perform, and the Board will not make those findings in the first instance on appeal.
The Board affirmed denial of asylum and withholding; the respondent’s CAT claim was not meaningfully challenged on appeal and is waived.

Issue	Respondent's Argument	DHS/Board's Argument	Held
Whether the social group articulated before the IJ is cognizable	The IJ erred in finding the group (single Honduran women 14–30 abused by family) not cognizable	The IJ’s factual findings showed lack of social distinction and no nexus; respondent conceded below group is invalid on appeal	Board: respondent concedes group below is not cognizable; IJ’s denial stands
Whether a new social group may be considered on appeal	Respondent: entitled to relief based on new group, “Honduran women and girls who cannot sever family ties”	Board: new group not raised below; Board generally will not consider claims first raised on appeal and cannot make first‑instance factfinding	Board: decline to consider new group; no remand; appeal dismissed
Burden to delineate particular social group in proceedings	Respondent: relied on counsel but proposes refined group now	Board: applicant must clearly indicate exact delineation before the IJ; IJ should seek clarification if unclear	Board: requirement stands; failure to present group below precludes consideration on appeal
Challenge to denial of Convention Against Torture relief	Respondent: did not meaningfully challenge CAT denial on appeal	Board: issues not meaningfully briefed are waived	Board: CAT claim waived and not addressed

Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding Board authority to decline consideration of issues not raised below)
Prabhudial v. Holder, 780 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2015) (appellate bodies may deem unraised arguments waived)
Larios v. Holder, 608 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2010) (Board has discretion to refuse to consider issues not raised below)
Pinos‑Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 2008) (Board’s discretionary authority to not consider new claims on appeal)
Torres de la Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007) (same)
Arévalo‑Girón v. Holder, 667 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2012) (declining to address particular social group articulated first on appeal)
Duarte‑Salagosa v. Holder, 775 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2014) (declining to consider social group raised for first time on appeal)
Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240 (8th Cir. 2017) (no jurisdiction to review newly defined social group not raised below)
Hernandez‑De La Cruz v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2016) (factual findings inform analysis of social distinction)
Sanchez‑Robles v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 688 (6th Cir. 2015) (same)
Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2010) (arguments listed in notice but not briefed are waived)
Valdiviezo‑Galdamez v. Attorney General of U.S., 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (example of appellate modification of a proposed social group during litigation)