Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@DerekHolt The class $\mathcal C_G$ for $G = SL_n(\mathbb F_q)$ is very explicit in Aschbacher's paper, but it's not clear to me what Aschbacher's main theorem actually says about subgroups that are not in $\mathcal C_G$, so perhaps the description is in Kleidman and Liebeck as Peter Mueller suggested.
@JasonStarr: that's certainly true. At any rate, the issue is not the reductive part as the closure of M in X is Y. It is not clear to me what the closure of U is. One might be tempted to say that it is isomorphic to G/P, but that's not true--as this guy is not bi-equivariant for U.