target since they are perceived by criminal elements to have money,” Appellant’s Br. 6, it does not specifically assert a social group claim. Although the failure of Carrera-Garrido to develop this claim before the administrative reviewers or explicitly in our Court would normally result in waiver, see, e.g., Nagle v. Alspach, 8 F.3d 141, 143 (3d Cir.1993), the asylum context is different. The IJ and BIA “have certain obligations under international law to extend refuge to those who qualify for such relief” and “bear the responsibility of ensuring that refugee protection is provided where such • protection is warranted by the circumstances of an asylum applicant’s claim.” In re S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722, 723 (BIA 1997); see also Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 135 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). It may be the case that Carrera-Garri-do’s
recognizing that claims for extrajudicial killings are actionable international law violations under the ats holding that when a plaintiff files suit alleging that multiple tortfeasors are responsible for the plaintiffs injury any settlements are to be credited against the amount for which the liable parties as a whole are found responsible but for which only the nonsettling defendant remains in court holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity recognizing that asylum  cases are different because the ij is responsible for making sure that qualified applicants are provided refuge in accordance with the obligations imposed by international law holding that international law provides substantive law for atca cases