'.

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Date:

File:

DEC 18 2015

In re: IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

Sital Kalantry, Esquire

CHARGE: Notice: Sec.

212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), I&N Act [S U.S.C. § IIS2(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)]Immigrant - no 'valid immigrant visa or entry document

APPLICATION: Asylum; withholding of removal; Convention Against Torture

The respondent, a native and citizen of EI Salvador, appeals from the Immigration Judge's decision dated November 17, 2014, denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 20S(b)(I)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, S U.S.C. §§ 1l5S(b)(I)(A) and 123 I (b)(3)(A), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See S C.F.R. §§ 120S.l6(c), 120S.IS. The Department of Homeland Security has not filed a brief in opposition to the respondent's appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded for the completion of background and identity checks. We review for clear error the Immigration Judge's findings of fact, including the determination of credibility. S C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). We review de novo all other issues, including issues of law, judgment or discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(d)(3)(ii). As the respondent submitted her application after May II, 2005, it is governed by the provisions of the REAL ID Act. See Matter ofS-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 42 (BIA 2006). The respondent's request for relief is based upon her fear of abuse by her former domestic partner and father of her youngest child. The respondent claims that she was repeatedly abused on account of her membership in a particular social group consisting of women in EI Salvador who are unable to leave their domestic relationship. The Immigration Judge found the respondent credible and that the harm the respondent experienced rises to the level of persecution. The Immigration Judge found, however, that the respondent had not established a nexuS between the harm and a social group cognizable under the Act because she was never married. We disagree with the Immigration Judge's conclusion and find that the respondent provided sufficient evidence that she is a member of a particular social group and was harmed on account of that membership. See Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014). The fact that the respondent was never formally married to her domestic partner is not a distinguishing factor from the social group rationale set forth in Matter of A-R-C-G-, supra, under the circumstances

presented here. The record shows that the respondent and her former partner were together for several years, cohabitated, and had a child together (I.J. at 4). We also conclude, based on the specific facts of this case, that the respondent established that the government is unable or unwilling to protect her in El Salvador. The record shows that once when the respondent called the police, she was informed that the couple needed to resolve their problems themselves and they were bound to each other because they have a son (I.J. at 6-8). See Matter ofA-R-C-G-, supra, at 393 (noting the significance of the refusal of police to interfere in a marital relationship). The record also shows that the respondent was not safe when she attempted to leave, as her former partner found her repeatedly and continued to abuse her. Although the respondent was able to obtain restraining orders, these orders were not enforced by the police due apparently to the nature of the respondent's relationship with her former partner. The respondent's former partner violated those orders without significant repercussions. He was never arrested or charged and continued to abuse the respondent. Thus, under the specific facts presented here, the respondent has established that the police are unable or unwilling to protect her and she cannot relocate within El Salvador to avoid harm in the future. Once the respondent has demonstrated past persecution on account of a protected ground, she is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 120S.\3(b)(1). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not rebutted this presumption. For these reasons, and there being no apparent discretionary reason to deny asylum, the respondent is eligible for and warrants a grant of asylum. In light of that disposition, we need not consider the respondent's applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We will remand the record for completion of the required background and security checks. Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered. ORDER: The appeal is sustained and, on this record, the respondent is found eligible for and deserving of asylum under section 208 of the Act. FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(6), the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for the purpose of allowing the DHS the opportunity to complete or update identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, and further proceedings, if necessary, and for the entry of an order as provided by S C.F.R. § 1003.47(h).

FOR THE

2