The Eighth Circuit has rejected "Guatemalan children who are witnesses to gang crime” as a particular social group for asylum purposes. “The BIA rejected this proposed social group for lack of particularity because the term ‘children’ is ‘vague and amorphous.’ Indeed, ‘children’ could mean minor children of Guatemalan nationals, or it could mean individuals of any age who were born of Guatemalan parents. If Pacheco-Mota intended the former definition, he does not fall within its scope—he was eighteen at the time of his first hearing before the IJ. If Pacheco-Mota intended the latter definition—any person of any age who is the child of Guatemalan parents—it is far too amorphous and overbroad to satisfy the particularity requirement. Pacheco-Mota’s proposed social group also fails for lack of social distinction. If we grant Pacheco-Mota the benefit of the broader definition of ‘children,’ the proposed social group is, in effect, all Guatemalan ‘witnesses to gang crime.’ Pacheco-Mota did not introduce evidence establishing that Guatemalan society ‘in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing the particular characteristic’ of gang crime witnesses as a distinct group.”
The full text of Pachecho-Mota v. Garland can be found here: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/10/223651P.pdf