Valdiviezo-Galdamez , 663 F.3d at 596-97. For example, in In re R-A- , 22 I. & N. Dec. 906 (BIA 1999; A.G. 2001), remanded for reconsideration in Matter of R-A- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 629 (A.G. 2008), it took issue with particular social groups that were "defined principally, if not exclusively, for the purposes of [litigation] ... without regard to the question of whether anyone in [a given country] perceives [those] group[s] to exist in any form whatsoever." Id. at 918.

See Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that "[w]hile agencies retain discretion to fill ambiguous statutory gaps, it does not follow that an agency may repeatedly put forward an interpretation that we already have examined under Chevron and found unreasonable at its second step") But if a provision of the INA is ambiguous and the BIA's interpretation of it is reasonable, then the BIA is not bound to follow a contrary interpretation by this court. See Brand X, 545 U.S. at 982-83, 125 S.Ct. 2688; In re R-A-, 24 I. N. Dec. 629, 631 n. 4 (Att'y Gen.2008) (recognizing that although BIA historically followed circuit court precedent within particular circuit even when it disagreed with it, Brand X makes clear that BIA is not bound by circuit court authority regarding interpretation of ambiguous statutory provisions). Conclusion

As asylum claims mounted, however, it became clear that more definite rules were needed lest "the social group concept . . . virtually swallow the entire refugee definition." Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. &N. Dec. 227, 231 (BIA 2014) (quoting In re R-A-, 22 I. &N. Dec. 906, 919 (BIA 1999, A.G. 2001), remanded for reconsideration in Matter of R-A, 24 I. &N. Dec. 629 (A.G. 2008)). The particularity requirement thus developed to "put 'outer limits' on the definition of a 'particular social group.'"

While the facts differ from Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which has to do with a female not being able to leave a relationship in Guatemala, the violence that was described in A-R-C-G is very similar to that referred to in Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906 (A.G. 2001). Going through he various remands, concluding in 24 I&N Dec. 629 (A.G. 2008). [sic] The Court finds that the respondent has suffered from this persecution in the past, and finds that past persecution has occurred.

Rodas claims she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group of women in Guatemala who are the victims of domestic violence. The IJ rejected Rodas' social group before the Attorney General's decision in Matter of R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 629 (BIA 2008) (lifting stay and remanding petitioner's claims based on domestic violence for further proceedings), and the BIA did not address Matter of R-A- in its decision. In light of the Attorney General's decision in Matter of R-A-, and in light of our intervening decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding for the agency to determine "whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular social group, and, if so, whether [petitioner] has demonstrated a fear of persecution" on account of her membership in a protected group), we grant Rodas' petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

Accordingly, what happened to her did not rise to the level of persecution and the extreme conduct that term encompasses. In addition, under Matter of R-A-, 24 I. N. Dec. 629, 630-31 (BIA 2008), in cases of asylum claims based on domestic violence, the agency may look to the specific facts of a case to determine whether an alien would qualify for protected status as a member of a particular social group, but the IJ concluded that Ramirez-AIvarado was not a member of a particular social group "merely by virtue of her rejection of the relationship with Mr. Alex El Candado." A.R. 74.

The shared characteristic "must be considered in the context of the country of concern and the persecution feared." Id. at 586-87; see also In re R-A-, 22 I. N. Dec. 906, 918 (B.I.A. 1999) (noting that "for the group to be viable . . ., we believe there must also be some showing of how the characteristic is understood in the alien's society, such that we, in turn, may understand that the potential persecutors in fact see persons sharing the characteristic as warranting suppression or the infliction of harm") (vacated and remanded by the Attorney General on January 19, 2001 for reconsideration "in light of the final rule" proposed at 65 Fed.Reg. 76,588 (Dec. 7, 2000), which was never finalized, and again remanded by the Attorney General on September 25, 2008 to the BIA to "proceed as it sees fit with its reconsideration . . . based on the current regulations, because the proposed rule has not been made final," 24 I. N. Dec. 629, 630-31 (Att'y Gen.2008)). In the present case, Abdulmunaem and Salah have offered several characteristics of the social group to which they purportedly belong.