#### Emilia ARIAS-DE ALVARADO, Cindy Mariluz Alvarado-Arias, Juan Carlos Argeta-Arias, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-544-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 21, 2011.

*84Andrew P. Johnson, Law Office of Andrew P. Johnson, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant Director; John J.W. Inkeles, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Present: RALPH K. WINTER, ROGER J. MINER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioners, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a January 15, 2010 order of the BIA vacating the February 27, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel A. Brennan, which granted their application for asylum. *In re Emilia Arias-De Alvarado,*Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/755/756 (B.I.A. Jan. 15, 2010), *vacating*Nos. [ AXXX XXX XXX ]/755/756 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

In the circumstances of this case, this Court reviews the decision of the BIA only. *See Yan Chen v. Gonzales,*417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); *Corovic v. Mukasey,*519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008). We review *de novo*questions of law and the application of law to undisputed fact. *Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,*529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that AriasDe Alvarado’s purported social group, single mothers without male protection, is not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA has long interpreted the term “social group” to mean “a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.” *Matter of Acosta,*19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (B.I.A. Mar. 1, 1985). A cognizable social group must (1) exhibit a shared characteristic that is socially visible to others in the community and (2) be defined with sufficient particularity. *See In re A-M-E & J-G-U-,*24 I. *&*N. Dec. 69, 74-76 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2007) *aff'd by Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 70, 73 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam). Here, the BIA’s finding that the purported group lacked the requisite social visibility or particularity is not supported by any explanation or analysis. *See Beskovic v. Gonzales,*467 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that the Court requires a “certain minimum level of analysis from [agency decisions] denying asylum, and indeed must require such if judicial review is to be meaningful”) (quoting *Poradisova v. Gonzales,*420 F.3d 70, 77 (2d Cir.2005)).

Moreover, although the BIA observed that Arias-De Alvarado’s “status as a single female parent without a male figure to protect her may have made her more vulnerable,” App. 4, the BIA does not appear to have considered whether her status was a “central reason” why she was targeted. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i) (2006) (providing that “the applicant must establish that [a protected ground] was or will be at least one central reason for” the claimed persecution); *see also Osorio v.*
      *85
      *INS,*18 F.3d 1017, 1028 (2d Cir.1994) (holding that “[t]he plain meaning of the phrase ‘persecution on account of the victim’s political opinion,’ does not mean persecution *solely*on account of the victim’s political opinion”)(emphasis in original).

Because the BIA has not provided sufficient analysis for our review to be meaningful, remand is appropriate. *See Beskovic,*467 F.3d at 227.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.