Particularity Requires Internal Discreteness, Not Mere Descriptive Clarity: Sixth Circuit Rejects “Gender-Plus-One” PSGs and Holds “Honduran Women” Incognizable

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case: Carmen Odalis Cabrera-Hernandez v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, No. 25-3123

Date: October 16, 2025

Disposition: Petition for review denied

Note: Not recommended for publication (nonprecedential)

Introduction

In this immigration petition, the Sixth Circuit denied review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that upheld an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to a Honduran national who fled at age twelve after gang-related kidnapping threats. The opinion, authored by Judge Ritz, addresses a single dispositive question: whether the petitioner’s proposed “particular social groups” (PSGs) are legally cognizable.

The court held that the broad groups “Honduran women,” “Honduran females between the ages of 5 and 21,” and “Honduran females between the ages of 15 and 24” fail the “particularity” requirement because they sweep in large, diverse segments of the population and lack internal discreteness. The panel also rejected the petitioner’s contention that Sixth Circuit law recognizes a categorical “gender plus one” rule that would automatically render such PSGs particularized. Because failure on any PSG element is fatal, the court affirmed without reaching other issues (nexus, due process, CAT).

Background

Petitioner Carmen Odalis Cabrera-Hernandez, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States without admission or parole in July 2014 and conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. She testified that at age twelve she was twice threatened with kidnapping by gang members while walking to school. After a friend was kidnapped and ransomed, her uncle escorted her; he was later murdered, allegedly by gang members, with no police investigation. She fears kidnapping or murder if returned to Honduras and believes police would not protect her.

The IJ denied all relief, finding her proposed PSGs not cognizable. The BIA affirmed on the PSG ground alone. This petition followed.

Summary of the Opinion

The Sixth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s opinion as the final agency decision and applied de novo review to the legal question of PSG cognizability. It held:

The petitioner’s proposed PSGs—“Honduran women,” “Honduran females between 5 and 21,” and “Honduran females between 15 and 24”—are not defined with particularity because they are overbroad and not internally discrete.
Particularity does not turn on descriptive clarity alone; breadth and heterogeneity matter.
The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on a supposed “gender plus one” formula derived from Bi Xia Qu v. Holder, clarifying that Qu recognized gender plus another characteristic can form a PSG, but does not create an automatic rule.
Because failure on particularity is dispositive, the court did not reach immutability or social distinction, nor did it consider the IJ’s nexus findings or due process arguments not addressed by the BIA.
The petitioner’s perfunctory, en masse invocation of 54 unpublished BIA decisions was forfeited for lack of developed argumentation.

Detailed Analysis

I. Standards of Review and Scope

Jurisdiction arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
When the BIA issues its own opinion, that decision is the focus of review; where the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, the court may also review the IJ (Khalili v. Holder; Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch). Here, the BIA issued a separate decision addressing PSG particularity; thus, the circuit limited review to that issue (Turcios-Flores v. Garland).
Legal determinations, including PSG cognizability, are reviewed de novo (Singh v. Rosen). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and may be overturned only if the record compels the contrary conclusion (Klawitter v. INS).

II. The PSG Framework and the “Particularity” Requirement

To qualify as a refugee, an applicant must show persecution on account of one of five protected grounds, including membership in a PSG. Under Matter of M-E-V-G-, a cognizable PSG must have:

Immutability,
Particularity, and
Social distinction within the relevant society.

The court focused on “particularity,” which asks whether the group is discrete and defined by clear boundaries such that it is recognized in the society as a distinct class (Al-Ghorbani v. Holder; Matter of M-E-V-G-).

III. Why the Proposed PSGs Fail Particularity

The panel underscored that the particularity inquiry is not satisfied by precise wording alone. A group can be linguistically clear yet fail particularity if it is “amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective” (Matter of M-E-V-G-). The court emphasized:

“Honduran women” encompasses an enormous, heterogeneous segment of the population lacking any internal unifying characteristic that would make the group discrete.
Age-banded variants—“Honduran females between 5 and 21” and “Honduran females between 15 and 24”—remain sweeping and indeterminate slices of the population and thus still overbroad.

The opinion aligns with prior Sixth Circuit cases rejecting broad, cross-cutting formulations:

Reyes Galeana v. Garland (2024): “Mexican business owners” lacked particularity because the group had “virtually no unifying relationship or characteristic narrowing” it.
Aguilar-Mejia v. Bondi (2025) (unpublished): “young male Guatemalans” and “child victims of gang recruitment and gang violence” were too sweeping to be particular.
Rreshpja v. Gonzales (2005): “young, attractive Albanian women who are forced into prostitution” was deemed generalized and sweeping.

IV. Rejection of a Categorical “Gender Plus One” Shortcut

The petitioner argued that Bi Xia Qu v. Holder established a “gender plus one” rule whereby gender combined with one additional immutable trait automatically yields a particularized PSG. The court disagreed. Qu recognized that gender plus another trait may form a valid PSG, but it did not create an automatic formula or alter Rreshpja and its progeny. Particularity remains a context-specific inquiry requiring a discrete, bounded group—not merely a list of immutable descriptors.

V. Divergence from Ninth Circuit Approaches

The petitioner cited sister-circuit decisions suggesting that large groups are not disqualified as a matter of size, including Perdomo v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010) (“Guatemalan women” not necessarily incognizable) and Mohammed v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing “Somalian females” in a context of near-universal FGM). The Sixth Circuit reiterated its earlier skepticism toward such broad formulations, explicitly noting that it had declined to endorse the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning (Rreshpja). The court reaffirmed its own line of cases that treat overbreadth and heterogeneity as barriers to particularity.

VI. Issues Not Reached: Nexus, Due Process, and CAT

Nexus: The IJ reportedly characterized the case as “at its core—a gang case.” The petitioner argued that rampant femicide and gender-based targeting provided the nexus to a protected ground. Because the BIA confined its decision to PSG cognizability—and the court reviews only issues the BIA addressed (Turcios-Flores)—the Sixth Circuit declined to reach nexus.
Due Process: The petitioner claimed the BIA ignored record evidence of femicide and failed to address IJ findings. The court again held these issues were outside the scope of review given the BIA’s limited reasoning.
CAT: Although the IJ denied CAT relief, the BIA’s opinion discussed only PSGs. The Sixth Circuit therefore did not address CAT, and the petition was denied on the PSG ground.

VII. Forfeiture for En Masse Citations

The petitioner appended 54 unpublished BIA decisions, referencing them collectively without developed analysis tying specific cases to specific propositions. The court deemed these arguments forfeited under circuit law requiring more than perfunctory presentation (Buetenmiller v. Macomb Cnty. Jail).

Precedents Discussed and Their Influence

Matter of M-E-V-G- (BIA 2014): Supplies the three-element PSG test; central to the court’s analysis of particularity and social distinction.
Rreshpja v. Gonzales (6th Cir. 2005): Found a gender-based, broadly framed group too generalized; frequently cited to reject overbroad PSGs. Continues to anchor Sixth Circuit PSG particularity analysis.
Reyes Galeana v. Garland (6th Cir. 2024): Reinforces that occupationally broad groups like “Mexican business owners” lack unifying characteristics; analogized here to national-gender-age groups.
Aguilar-Mejia v. Bondi (6th Cir. 2025) (unpublished): Confirms the court’s skepticism of youth-based, population-wide PSGs tied to generalized gang violence.
Bi Xia Qu v. Holder (6th Cir. 2010): Recognizes that gender plus another trait can compose a PSG; clarified here not to create a rigid “gender plus one” rule.
Mohammed v. Keisler (6th Cir. 2007): Emphasizes need for targeting on account of a protected ground; contrasts generalized gang violence.
Perdomo v. Holder and Mohammed v. Gonzales (9th Cir.): Suggest large groups may still be cognizable; the Sixth Circuit expressly declines to follow that approach.
Al-Ghorbani v. Holder (6th Cir. 2009): Articulates the “sufficiently distinct”/“discrete class” frame for particularity, echoed throughout this opinion.
Turcios-Flores v. Garland (6th Cir. 2023): Limits appellate review to issues the BIA actually addressed; invoked to avoid nexus and due process questions here.
Klawitter v. INS (6th Cir. 1992): “Compels” standard for overturning factual findings; cited to frame review though not decisive here given the legal nature of the question presented.

Legal Reasoning, Step-by-Step

Identify the dispositive legal question: Are the petitioner’s proposed PSGs cognizable under the INA?
Apply the PSG framework: Under Matter of M-E-V-G-, a PSG must be immutable, particular, and socially distinct.
Focus on particularity: The court concentrates on whether the groups are discrete and bounded in Honduran society. It holds that nation-wide gender and broad age bands are too sweeping and heterogeneous to be particular.
Reject formulaic shortcuts: Clarifies that descriptive precision is not equivalent to legal particularity; rejects any “gender plus one” automatic rule.
Distinguish contrary authority: Declines to follow Ninth Circuit cases suggesting broad national gender groups suffice; adheres to Sixth Circuit precedent emphasizing internal discreteness and overbreadth concerns.
Conclude with PSG failure: Because failure on any PSG element defeats eligibility, the court does not reach the other elements or issues.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although nonprecedential, the opinion is a clear reaffirmation of existing Sixth Circuit doctrine and signals the court’s continued approach to PSG particularity in gang-affected contexts and gender-based claims.

Gender- and age-defined national groups are disfavored in the Sixth Circuit: “Honduran women” and similar formulations will likely fail the particularity prong without additional narrowing features that create a discrete, bounded class recognized in society.
No “gender plus one” shortcut: Combining gender with another immutable characteristic (e.g., age) is not automatically sufficient; advocates must demonstrate internal delimitation and social recognition of the group as a discrete class.
Gang-violence context requires refined targeting theory: Generalized exposure to gang crime remains insufficient; applicants must connect harm to a cognizable group and show targeting “on account of” that membership.
Briefing discipline matters: En masse citations to unpublished agency decisions, without granular analysis tying each to specific propositions, risk forfeiture.
Issue-preservation and scope of review: Because the court reviews only what the BIA addressed, practitioners should ensure the BIA expressly engages with all grounds (nexus, CAT, due process) they intend to pursue on petition for review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Particular Social Group (PSG): A category of persons sharing a common immutable characteristic, with boundaries that are clear (particularity) and recognized by the society (social distinction). Examples that often satisfy PSG include nuclear-family membership; broad national-gender groups commonly do not in the Sixth Circuit.
Immutability: Traits that cannot or should not be required to change (e.g., sex, kinship ties). Gender is immutable, but immutability alone is not enough.
Particularity: The group must be discrete and clearly bounded; it cannot be overly broad or amorphous. Size is not dispositive, but breadth and heterogeneity can show lack of discreteness.
Social Distinction: The society in question must perceive the group as distinct—not just the persecutors or the government, but a societal perception more broadly.
Nexus: The persecution must be “on account of” a protected ground (e.g., PSG). General criminality or opportunistic violence typically fails nexus.
Asylum vs. Withholding: Withholding has a higher burden (“more likely than not”) but uses the same protected grounds. Failure to establish a cognizable PSG dooms both asylum and withholding when no other protected ground is asserted.
CAT: Protection against torture does not require a protected ground, but does require proof that torture is more likely than not with government acquiescence. Not reached here because the BIA did not address it.
Standard of Review: Legal issues reviewed de novo; factual findings stand unless the record compels the contrary result.
Issue Preservation and Forfeiture: Courts require developed argumentation. Perfunctory or blanket citations risk forfeiture.

Practice Notes

When advancing gender-based PSGs in the Sixth Circuit, avoid generic national-gender formulations. Consider narrower groups with clear internal bounds that Honduran society would recognize as discrete, supported by country-conditions and expert evidence focused on social distinction and boundaries.
Be cautious of circularly defining the group by the harm (e.g., “women targeted by gangs”); courts often reject circular PSGs.
If nexus or CAT is essential to the claim, press the BIA to expressly decide those issues; otherwise, the court of appeals may decline to review them.
Use targeted authorities. Explain how each cited case supports the exact proposition at issue; avoid bulk, undifferentiated citations.

Conclusion

In denying Cabrera-Hernandez’s petition, the Sixth Circuit reinforced a central tenet of its PSG jurisprudence: particularity requires more than precise labels; it demands internal discreteness that avoids sweeping, heterogeneous population segments. The decision explicitly rejects any categorical “gender plus one” shortcut to particularity and aligns with a line of Sixth Circuit cases skeptical of broad gender-, age-, or occupation-based PSGs, especially in the generalized gang-violence context. While unpublished, the opinion provides a clear signal to practitioners: in this circuit, successful PSGs must be narrowly drawn, socially recognized, and demonstrably discrete, with careful briefing that squarely joins both doctrinal requirements and record evidence.