Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985)
Matter of Acosta is a cornerstone of U.S. asylum jurisprudence because it provided the first authoritative administrative definition of "membership in a particular social group" (PSG) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Does a group defined as Salvadoran taxi drivers or members of a taxi cooperative qualify as a "particular social group" under the INA, and were the threats and coercion by guerrillas "on account of" a protected ground so as to warrant asylum or withholding of deportation?
"Membership in a particular social group" refers to a group of persons who share a common, immutable characteristic—one they either cannot change or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their identities or consciences. The characteristic may be innate (such as sex, color, or kinship ties) or, in some circumstances, a shared past experience that is immutable. Interpreted ejusdem generis with race, religion, nationality, and political opinion, the PSG ground must reflect comparable, fundamental attributes rather than voluntary or changeable affiliations like occupation. Persecution may be inflicted by the government or by non-state actors that the government is unable or unwilling to control. The persecutor's harm must be "on account of" (i.e., motivated by) a protected ground; generalized civil strife or efforts to compel compliance with non-political demands ordinarily do not satisfy the nexus requirement. At the time of Acosta, the BIA treated the "well-founded fear" standard for asylum as equivalent to the "clear probability" standard for withholding; that equivalence was later rejected by the Supreme Court.
The BIA dismissed the appeal and denied asylum and withholding of deportation. It held that Salvadoran taxi drivers or taxi cooperative members do not constitute a "particular social group," and that the threats and coercion by guerrillas were not shown to be on account of the respondent's political opinion or any other protected ground. Consequently, the respondent failed to establish eligibility for either asylum or withholding.
Matter of Acosta remains the foundational authority for defining "particular social group." Its immutable characteristic test has been embraced by federal courts and the BIA and undergirds later refinements such as "particularity" and "social distinction" (e.g., in Matter of M-E-V-G- and Matter of W-G-R-). Acosta also clarifies that non-state actors can be persecutors when the state cannot or will not protect victims and highlights the centrality of the nexus requirement: harm must be motivated by a protected ground, not merely by criminality, coercion, or civil strife. Although Acosta's equivalence of the asylum and withholding standards was superseded by INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (1987), its PSG definition and nexus analysis continue to shape modern asylum claims, influencing recognition of groups based on gender, sexual orientation, family ties, and certain past experiences.