Ana Rodriguez De Ayala v. William Barr

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA GLORIA RODRIGUEZ DE No. 17-72022 AYALA, Agency No. A087-898-572 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: IKUTA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States Chief District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Petitioner Ana Rodriguez de Ayala seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we grant the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts necessary to decide the issues on appeal. 1. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that although Rodriguez established past persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group, she failed to demonstrate that the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to protect her. That is the sole issue on appeal related to her claims for asylum and withholding, and we conclude that the record evidence compels the opposite conclusion. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Rodriguez credibly testified that when her husband threatened to kill her, he warned her that she “shouldn’t even dare to call the police because he was the police,” and the police would not pay attention to her. She further credibly testified that the police in her community “help each other” and “wouldn’t listen” to her reports about her husband’s domestic violence. Petitioner’s husband thus threatened that the police would not protect her, specifically because he was a police officer. 2 The country conditions report corroborates Rodriguez’s credible testimony, but the IJ and BIA ignored the most relevant portions of that evidence. The report noted “high levels of impunity for crime and abuse of official authority,” a “high level of domestic violence” and “violence and discrimination against women,” and “widespread” incidents of rape and sex crimes against women. Although El Salvador passed laws prohibiting domestic violence, the report made clear that “in practice the government did not effectively enforce th[o]se provisions,” that spousal rape was “not specifically addressed in the law,” that “[l]aws against rape were not effectively enforced,” that “laws against domestic violence were not well enforced, and cases were not effectively prosecuted,” and that overall, “[t]he government’s efforts to combat domestic violence were minimally effective.” The report further explained that domestic violence “was a widespread and serious problem” that “was considered socially acceptable” and was ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals