Sherpa’s application for asylum and withholding of removal based on his failure to show a nexus to a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); See Jiang v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 137, 142 (2d Cir.2007). The agency rejected Sherpa’s proposed particular social group, which he defined as wealthy Sherpa landowners who are involved with the Congress Party. See In re Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (BIA 1985) (An “immutable characteristic” is one that members of the group “either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.”). The agency reasonably concluded that “wealth” was not an immutable characteristic that could be used to define a social group. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234, 240 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70,
holding that poor yemeni muslims are not a particular social group because group posseses broadlybased characteristics holding that government informants are not members of a particular social group holding that government material witnesses do not constitute a particular social group 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 former gang members do not comprise a particular social group