Holding that members of a particular social group must "share a common, immutable characteristic that group members either cannot change or should not have to change because the characteristic is fundamental"
Holding that petitioner's general assertions in motion to reopen were not sufficient to exhaust "specific issue" for which he sought review from this court when it had not been presented to the BIA for consideration
Holding that "objections to the agency's weighing of the facts [in the denial of statutory withholding of removal are] not within our jurisdiction to review"
Finding IJ's decision inadequate because it did not address asylum applicant's ground for persecution by name and because actual analysis of whether persecution had nexus to protected ground was conclusory