class of persons,” and socially visible in a way that the members are “perceived as a group by society, such that these individuals suffer from a higher incidence of crime than the rest of the population.” Id. (quotation and internal quotations omitted). The BIA and the IJ correctly determined that the social group advanced by Oxlaj-Vasquez is not protected by the INA. The alleged social group does not possess the type of immutable characteristic protected by the INA such as “sex, color, or kinship ties, or in some circumstances ... shared past experience.” Malonga, 546 F.3d at 553 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). Oxlaj-Vas-quez asserts that whether the group is “socially visible” is irrelevant. Our precedent, however, indicates otherwise. See Gaitan, 671 F.3d at 681 (<HOLDING>). Oxlaj-Vasquez further asserts that the size
holding the applicant must show social visibility and particularity holding based on equitable estoppel principles that a municipality may not through its agents affirmatively create an objectively reasonable impression in an applicant that he has fully complied with all zoning requirements and then proceed to withdraw permission after the applicant has taken steps towards construction which result in a substantial detriment to the applicant holding that status as competing family business owners did not give petitioners sufficient social visibility to be perceived as a group by society 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  holding that the applicant failed to satisfy the statute because the applicant did not have an ownership right or access right to the reservoir site