With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the IJ’s finding that Galdamez was not persecuted “on account” of his membership in this group is not supported by substantial evidence. The government contends that we should deny the petition for review and affirm the denial of asylum on the ground that the group to which Galdamez belongs is not a “particular social group” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, neither the IJ nor the BIA decided whether the group of which Galdamez claims to be a member — “young Honduran men who have been actively recruited by gangs and who have refused to join the gangs” — is a “particular social group” within the meaning of the Act. We decline to decide this question in the first instance. See Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 126 S.Ct. 1613, 164 L.Ed.2d 358 (2006) (<HOLDING>). The IJ denied Galda-mez’s application for

A: holding that the court of appeals is without jurisdiction to consider points not squarely raised before the bia
B: holding that appellate court erred by reaching question of changed country conditions where neither bia nor ij had been given a chance to address it in the first instance
C: holding that court of appeals erred by holding in the first instance that members of a family are a particular social group without prior resolution of this issue by the bia
D: holding that court of appeals erred by deeming a finding in support of the verdict instead of the trial courts final judgment
C.