The Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of A-C-V-M-, 30 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4274, on November 12, 2026. The decision has two holdings. The first is that the proposed group of “Guatemalan women without partners” lacks particularity and social distinction and is therefore not a cognizable particular social group. The second is that an imputed opinion about social conventions, without any relation to the government, does not qualify as an imputed political opinion.
Asylum requires a person to show that the harm they suffered or fear is connected to one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. For women fleeing gender-based violence, the last two grounds have carried most of the weight. Matter of A-C-V-M- narrows both in the same decision.
The decision also shows how fragile a grant can be. An Immigration Judge granted the respondent asylum in November 2022. DHS appealed, the respondent had no lawyer and did not respond, and four years later the Board vacated the grant and ordered her removed.
Matter of A-C-V-M- is the thirty-fourth precedential decision in roughly twelve weeks that shifts immigration law in the government’s direction. It is the Board’s fifth precedent decision in under two weeks, following Matter of Pierre-Louis, Matter of Cruz Aijiaco, Matter of Ontiveros-Diaz, and Matter of G-M-T-.
The respondent is a native and citizen of Guatemala. Her asylum claim was based on harassment by men in Guatemala. She testified that a man on a motorcycle grabbed her by the shoulder and waist and tried to pull her onto the motorcycle, and that other men tried to hug or touch her without her consent.
She proposed two particular social groups: “Guatemalan women” and “Guatemalan women without partners.” On November 4, 2022, the Immigration Judge granted asylum. The judge rejected “Guatemalan women” as overbroad but found that “Guatemalan women without partners” was a cognizable group. The judge also found, on her own initiative, that the harassers were motivated by an imputed political opinion, even though the respondent never claimed one.
The Immigration Judge also found that the respondent qualified for an exception to the one-year filing deadline for asylum. DHS did not challenge that finding. The respondent withdrew her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, so asylum was her only remaining claim. The case arose within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
A particular social group must meet the test set out in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014). The group’s members must share an immutable characteristic. The group must also be defined with particularity and be socially distinct within the society in question. The Board reviews whether a proposed group meets that test de novo, without deferring to the Immigration Judge. The Immigration Judge had found all three elements but had not explained any of them.
Particularity. A group is particular when it is defined by characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for deciding who belongs. The Board found that “partner” fails that test. Unlike marriage, which has a clear legal definition, the word could describe people who are casually dating or in a committed relationship, as well as people who share a child or are married. Because the point at which someone becomes another person’s partner depends on who is doing the defining, the group had no clear boundaries.
Social distinction. A group is socially distinct when society in general perceives the shared characteristic as defining a group. The Board noted that social distinction must generally be measured across the whole country, citing Matter of S-E-M-Z-, 29 I&N Dec. 680, 685 (BIA 2026). The Immigration Judge made no findings about how Guatemalan society views women without partners, and the respondent offered no argument on the point. Because the applicant carries the burden of proving the group exists, the absence of evidence was enough to defeat it.
“Guatemalan women.” The Board agreed with the Immigration Judge that this broader group fails. It relied on Matter of K-E-S-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 145, 151 (BIA 2025), which held that a group defined by sex, or by sex and nationality, standing alone, is overbroad and insufficiently particular. It also cited the Third Circuit’s decision upholding the rejection of the same group in Chavez-Chilel v. Attorney General, 20 F.4th 138, 146 (3d Cir. 2021).
The Immigration Judge reasoned that the respondent had shown independence by walking to school while other women stayed home, and that the men who harassed her could view her persistence as defiance of male-dominated social norms. The Board rejected that reasoning on two levels.
The first was factual. A persecutor’s motive is a question of fact, reviewed for clear error under Matter of N-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011). The Board found nothing in the record showing that the men knew she was walking to school, much less that they viewed her education through any political lens. In the Board’s view, the Immigration Judge’s conclusion rested on speculation; the evidence showed only that the men saw her actions as a rejection of their advances.
The second was legal. Even if the men had viewed her actions as defiance, the Board held, that would not be a political opinion. It reaffirmed Matter of D-G-E-A- & N-G-G-E-, 29 I&N Dec. 570, 575-76 (BIA 2026), which requires a political opinion to be tied to a belief about a discrete cause related to the government of a country or a de facto government. An imputed opinion about social conventions, without that connection to government, does not qualify.
The Immigration Judge had relied on Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, 948 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2020), in which the Second Circuit recognized that resisting sexual violence in a society with entrenched gender norms could reflect a political opinion. The Board answered that a Second Circuit decision does not bind adjudicators in cases arising in the Third Circuit, citing Matter of Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989), and noted that it had already declined to follow Hernandez-Chacon’s reasoning in Matter of D-G-E-A- & N-G-G-E-.
Matter of A-C-V-M- is the latest step in a line of decisions that has narrowed gender-based asylum claims over the past decade.
The Board has not said that every gender-based claim fails. Matter of K-E-S-G- stated that its holding does not affect claims involving female genital cutting, and noted that groups with additional defining characteristics, such as Indigenous Guatemalan women, raise different questions. The path forward runs through carefully defined groups backed by country-specific evidence, along with political opinion claims connected to government where the facts support them.
Board precedent binds Immigration Judges nationwide, but circuit court precedent controls in cases arising within that circuit. Matter of A-C-V-M- itself applies that principle: the Board set aside Hernandez-Chacon precisely because a Second Circuit decision does not bind cases arising in the Third Circuit. The same logic means that Ninth Circuit precedent binds Immigration Judges hearing cases in Washington.
Political opinion in the Ninth Circuit. In Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 753 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit recognized feminism as a political opinion and held that abuse inflicted on a woman because she sought equal standing in the social hierarchy can be persecution on account of political opinion. That holding is in direct tension with Matter of D-G-E-A- & N-G-G-E- and the second holding of Matter of A-C-V-M-. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), an agency interpretation can no longer displace a prior circuit court reading of the statute. In our view, Rodriguez Tornes remains binding in cases arising in the Ninth Circuit, though we expect DHS to argue otherwise.
Social groups in the Ninth Circuit. In Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit held that the Board could not reject “women in Guatemala” as a social group merely because the group was large or internally diverse. The Board in Matter of K-E-S-G- treated Perdomo as decided under an older framework, but the Ninth Circuit has continued to cite it, including in Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2023). The particularity problem in Matter of A-C-V-M- was different: the Board found the word “partner” itself undefined, which is a question of definitional clarity that Ninth Circuit precedent also recognizes.
The Tenth Circuit. The Board in Matter of K-E-S-G- counted the Tenth Circuit among the courts that have disagreed with Perdomo’s reasoning. Readers in Colorado should expect the Board’s gender-based asylum precedents to apply with full force, and claims there will depend heavily on how the group is defined and on the strength of the country conditions evidence.
Appellate Immigration Judge Creppy wrote the opinion. Appellate Immigration Judge Hunsucker joined it, making this the sixth consequential decision in the Hunsucker pattern we have tracked, following Matter of J-E-D-C-, Matter of Ozuna Mendoza, Matter of Callos Mercader, Matter of S-N-K-C-, and Matter of Cruz Aijiaco. Judge Hunsucker wrote the last two.
The third panel member, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge White, has now joined four precedent decisions published in just over two weeks: Matter of K-Y-V-R-, designated as precedent on October 27, followed by Matter of Pierre-Louis, Matter of Cruz Aijiaco, and Matter of A-C-V-M-. Judge White did not write any of the four. We will track this as the White pattern, applying the same four-decision threshold we used when naming the Hunsucker pattern.
What is a particular social group?
It is one of the five grounds for asylum. A group qualifies only if its members share an immutable characteristic. The group must also be defined clearly enough to tell who belongs, and society in the country of origin must recognize it as a group.
Can women still get asylum based on gender-based violence?
Yes, but it is harder. The Board has rejected groups defined only by sex and nationality, and now a group defined by relationship status. Claims built on carefully defined groups with strong country evidence remain possible. Protection under the Convention Against Torture, which requires no protected ground, also remains available.
Why didn’t “Guatemalan women without partners” qualify?
The Board found that “partner” has no clear meaning, since it could describe anyone from a casual date to a spouse. It also found no evidence showing that Guatemalan society views women without partners as a distinct group.
Is resisting harassment a political opinion?
Under Matter of A-C-V-M-, not unless the opinion is connected to the government. In the Ninth Circuit, however, Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland recognizes feminism as a political opinion, and that precedent should still apply to cases arising there.
What happens if DHS appeals my asylum grant?
The Board reviews the case and may reverse it. You have the right to file a brief defending the grant, and you should work with an attorney to do so. The respondent in this case did not respond and was ordered removed.
Where can I find Matter of A-C-V-M-?
Matter of A-C-V-M-, 30 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4274, is a precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals decided November 12, 2026. It is available through the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review website.
Novo Legal Group is a bilingual, community-rooted human rights firm. Every attorney on our team is fluent in English and Spanish. Our litigation team handles asylum and withholding of removal claims, protection under the Convention Against Torture, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and petitions for review before federal courts of appeals including the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. We build gender-based claims with the country evidence and circuit authority that current precedent demands, and we defend grants on appeal. If you or a family member has an asylum case, or has received notice that DHS appealed a grant, contact us. We will tell you what we would do given your specific facts.
SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION
(888) 746-5245 | novo-legal.com/contact