With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is such that it is generally out of the public view .... [and] visibility is limited to those informants who are discovered.” 23 I. & N. Dec. at 960. The BIA has continued to apply social visibility analysis in later cases, determining that “no particular social group” exists for individuals seeking protection as “affluent Guatemalans,” In re A-M-E & J-G-U, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 75-76, or for Salvadoran youths who had rejected or resisted criminal gang recruitment efforts, In re S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dee. 579 (BIA 2008), or for young Hondurans resistant to gang membership, In re E-A-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 591 (BIA 2007). A number of our sister circuits have adopted the BIA’s use of social visibility as a relevant criterion. See, e.g., Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624, 629 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945 (9th

A: holding the applicant must show social visibility and particularity
B: holding a court need not find the harassment to be psychologically injurious so long as the environment would reasonably be perceived and is perceived as hostile or abusive
C: holding that status as competing family business owners did not give petitioners sufficient social visibility to be perceived as a group by society
D: holding that the proposed social group of affluent guatemalans depends on no disadvantage other than purported visibility to criminals so that the scales are tipped away from considering those people a particular social group
C.