~ . j

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT 100 MONTGOMERY ST., SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

Law Offices of Shamieh & Ternieden Olmos, Ana Belen 605 Market Street Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 ~

•

u

~

:..

ILE A

DATE: Jan 20, 2015

ET.AL UNABLE TO FORWARD - NO ADDRESS PROVIDED ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE MAILING OF THIS WRITTEN DECISION. SEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEAL. YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL, ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUEST MUST BE MAILED TO: BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS OFFICE OF THE CLERK 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 FALLS CHURCH, VA 20530 ATTACHED IS A COpy OF THE DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AS THE RESULT OF YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDULED DEPORTATION OR REMOVAL HEARING. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS A MOTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 242B(c) (3) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. SECTION 1252B(c) (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240(c} (6), 8 U.S.C. SECTION 1229a(c) (6) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU FILE A MOTION TO REOPEN, YOUR MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THIS COURT:

-

IMMIGRATION COURT 100 MONTGOMERY ST., SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

FF CC: MCQUILLAN, STEPHEN 100 MONTGOMERY STREET, STE 200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94104

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT SAN FRANCISCOt CALIFORNIA

Matters of

Date:

JAN 20 2015

File Numbers:

In Removal Proceedings

Respondents Charge:

Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, as aliens present without admission or parole

Applications:

Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Protection under the Convention Against Torture

On Behalf of the Resoondents: Ana Belen Olmos Law Offices of Shamieh & Temieden 703 Market Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, California 94103

On BehalfofDHS: Stephen McQuillan Office of the ChiefCounsel ]00 Montgomery Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94104

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 13,2014, the Department of Homeland Securit

"DHS" initiated these removal

~s

against the respondents, _ _ _ by filing a Notice to Appear (''NTN') with the San Francisco, California Immigration Court. Exh. 1. The NTA alleges that the respondents (1) are not citizens or nationals ofthe United States, (2) are natives and citizens ofEI Salvador, (3) entered the United States at or near Granjeno, Texas on or about June 10, 2014, and (4) were not then admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer. Id. At a master calendar hearing on September 2,2014, the respondents admitted the factual allegations contained in the NTA, conceded removability, and declined to designate a country of removal. Based on their admissions and concession, the Court found the respondents removable as charged and directed EI Salvador as the country of removal, should removal become necessary. At that hearing, the respondent submitted a Fonn 1-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding ofRemoval, with her minor daughter, the respondent listed as a derivative applicant. The Court heard testimony in this matter on November 19, 2014.

~erlo _ _ _ _ as "the responden

_Ilks

"the respondent," to her minor daughl~ " and to the family collectively as "the respondents." -

II. EVIDENCE PRESENTED The evidence of record consists of the respondent's testimony and the following exhibits: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4:

A.

NTA;

The Respondent's Fonn I-S89, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, with Supporting Documentation; The Respondent's Brief in Support ofher Asylum Appli~tion and Additional Supporting Documentation; and The Respondent's Submission of Additional Documentation in Support of her Asylum Application.

The Respondent's Declarations and Testimony

The respondent testified before the Court on November 19. 2014, and submitted two declarations in support ofher applications for relief Exhs. 2, 3. Because her testimony, declaration, and amended declaration were largely consistent, the Court summarizes them together. ld. The respondent was born on March 28, 1983, in the town of Delgado, department of San Salvador, EI Salvador. Exh. 3 at 33. She is the sole caretaker ofher four-year-old daughter, the respondent_ who was born on February 10, 2010, in Delgado. Jd. The respondent is not married. Jd. The respondent obtained an undergraduate degree in Business Administration from the University ofEI Salvador in June 2008. Jd. In March 2012, the respondent began a new job as Administrative and Financial Manager at the Credit Agency ofEI Salvador. She earned US$600 per month in this position. ld. The respondent testified that this was an average salary for her profession, but a very high salary for a woman living in her neighborhood. The respondent testified that she was the only woman working at the managerial level in her office at the Credit Agency and the only woman of professional stature living in her neighborhood. Before coming to the United States, the respondent resided alone with her daughter in the neighborhood of Santa Josefita, within the town of Delgado. Jd. She testified that members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang (UMS-13") controlled her neighborhood in EI Salvador and carefully observed the movements ofits residents. Id. She further testified that the local MS-13 faction knew that she was a single mother because they frequently saw her alone with her daughter. without a male companion. Jd. In March 2013. MS-13 gang members stopped the respondent as she was walking home

from work. Id. The gang members grabbed her purse and rifled through it in front ofher. They found her work identification badge, which contained her name. photograph, and position at the bank, and questioned her about it. Jd. After stealing the money in her purse. they ultimately let her go. Two days after this first incident, MS-13 members again stopped the respondent on her walk home from work. Jd The gang members explained that they had received orders from their leader requiring that the respondent pay a $200 monthly "quota" going forward, due on the second or third 2

-

day of each month. Id. at 33-34. The respondent explained that she could not afford this payment because she was a single mother who needed to provide for her daughter. Id. at 34. She testified that the gang members did not believe her because she was dressed in business attire and her identification badge showed that she worked as a manager at a financial institution. Id. The gang members threatened to kill her and her daughter if she did not pay them. and they warned her not to seek help from the police. [d. Fr.om_that dayJorw.ard, MS~l3 members cDntinuaIlyslopped the respondenCo.n thc_streeL each month to remind her of the quota and the consequences of failure to pay it in full. Id. Each month, a group of about eight male gang members would come to her home to collect the money. Id. Two gang members would approach her door, demand payment. and count the money. Then the group would leave. Id. The respondent paid the gang $200 each month out offear. The MS-13 had murdered her brother-in-law in July 2009. Id. at 33. The respondent knew the MS-l3 had the capacity to realize their death threats. In February 2014, MS-13 members stopped the respondent on the street to inform her of their plans to increase her monthly quota to $300. Id. at 34. Soon after. the respondent received a note in her mailbox threatening to kill her, her daughter, and her other relatives if she did not pay the increased amount. Id. On February 13, 2014, MS-13 members arrived at her house, called their leader on a cell phone, and handed the phone to the respondent. Id. The gang leader told the respondent that she had to cooperate ifshe wanted to continue living. Id. The gang members also told the respondent that they knew every detail of her life: where she worked, what type of security system her employer used, what time she left work each day, and which school her daughter attended. Id. After the phone call. the gang members told her that they would return on February 17, 20I4, to collect the remaining $100 that she owed them, based on her initial failure to pay the increased quota amount. Jd. When the gang members returned to her house on that date, the respondent gave them the requested $100. The gang members informed her that they would return on March 3, 2014, to collect $300.

After the quota increase, the respondent could no longer afford to pay the gang members; she did not have enough money to cover food and her daughter's expenses. On March 3, 2014, MS13 members arrived at the respondent's home to collect the quota as promised. Id. The respondent explained that she could not afford to pay the increased amount. [d. The gang members threatened to kill her if she did not pay. Id. The respondent told them to wait while she borrowed the money from someone to pay them. [d. In reality, the respondent had the money in her house, but she did not want the MS-13 members to know this. ld. After about 15 minutes, the respondent came out of her house and handed them the $300. ld. The respondent borrowed $120 from a friend to pay her monthly expenses. Id. On April 3, 2014, the respondent gave the MS-13 members only $200, explaining that her daughter was sick and she had to buy medicine. Id. at 35. The gang members told her that they would consult with their leader and possibly return to 4'get" her and her daughter. Id. The next morning, gang members stopped the respondent on the street as she was taking her daughter to school. Id. They told her that she ucould not play around with them anymore," and that they were coming to her house that night to collect the money. ld. They threatened to harm her daughter if she did not pay. The respondent's daughter witnessed the threats and was frightened. Jd. That night, eight gang members carne to the respondent's home brandishing wooden bats. Id. She gave them the requested $100, and they left. Id. 3

One week later, gang members contacted the respondent to demand payment ofan additional $100 "due to an emergency." ld. She told them she had already paid her quota in full, and she did not have the extra money. ld. The next morning, the respondent faced a barrage of insults and threats as she walked her daughter to school. ld. Gang members called her a "bitch" and ''whore.'' ld. They told her that her life and her daughter's life were worthless and that they could kill her at that moment ifthey so desired. ld. They reiterated that she needed to pay them the . extra$Ij)O. _ld. _ _ __ Thereafter, the respondent tried to hide from the MS-13. ld. In the mornings, she asked a neighbor to drive her daughter to school and to drop her off at the bus station. ld. At night, however, she continued to walk home from work because she had no access to alternative transportation. ld. On April 18, 2014, gang members robbed the respondent on her walk home from work, stealing her work cell phone. ld. That night, the MS-13 vandalized the respondent's house with graffiti of their gang symbol. ld. The next day, the respondent reported the stolen cell phone to her employer and had the phone deactivated. ld. Despite her prudence, gang members found the respondent's work number in the contacts list ofthe stolen phone and began to call her repeatedly at work. ld. The respondent testified that she stopped answering calls from unknown numbers. On April 20, five MS-13 members came to the respondent's horne in the afternoon. ld. When the respondent opened her front door, a gang member pointed a gun at her and threatened, "If you don't give me the money I will kill you and your family right now and make all of you disappear." ld. The respondent was terrified. ld. She explained that she did not have the money on her, and she pleaded for additional time to obtain it. ld. at 36. The gang member told her she had "until that night to get the money," and he warned her not to seek help from the police. ld. The respondent's daughter witnessed this incident. About two hours later, the respondent went to the local police station to file a report. ld. The officers on duty explained that they had no resources available to protect her, as they were busy investigating other cases. ld. Fearing for her life and the life ofher daughter, the respondent borrowed money from her friend to pay the additional $100 to the MS-13. ld. She gave the money to the MS-13 members on the street on her walk home from work. ld. In May 2014, the respondent had no money left to pay the quota, as she recently reimbursed her friend for the $100 borrowed in April. ld. She paid the gang members only $30, explaining that it was all she had left. ld. A gang member raised his fist and threatened to beat her. but she told him to "go ahead and hit me because I just did not have the money." ld. That week, the gang insulted the respondent in the street every day in the presence ofher daughter. ld. They called her a ''bitch'' and threatened her, as her frightened daughter screamed and cried. ld.

As a precaution, the respondent stopped taking her daughter to school. ld. She stopped opening the door to her horne. ld. She kept all of the lights off in her house so that the gang members would think no one was home. ld. Around mid-May, she heard gunshots outside ofher house and hid under the bed with her daughter in fear. ld.

4

.,-., On May 16, 2014, gang members followed the respondent home and confronted her as soon as she arrived. ld. They told her that, per their leader's orders, ifshe did not pay the remaining $270, they would murder her and her daughter without hesitation. ld. They told her that they would kill her daughter first in front ofher, and then kill her. ld. The respondent resigned from her job on May 19, 2014. ld. She told her boss that she could no longer cope with the situation. ld. During this period, the gang members continually assaulted amthfIDlS~ed -lhe--Ie~P-9ngent op h~ [email protected]_homeJr.onl.W_Qrk. ld. at 'J 7, __Th~J\1S.~ I ~ .sQraY-12ain1~~L _ additional graffiti on her house and placed a second threatening note in her mailbox. ld. Fearing for her life and that ofher daughter, the respondent decided to flee the country. ld The respondents left El Salvador on May 30,2014, and arrived in the United States in June 2014. ld. at 33; see a/so Exh. 1. Customs and Border Patrol C'CBP") stopped the respondents as they crossed the US-Mexico border. Exh. 3 at 37. The respondent testified that she cannot return to El Salvador because the MS-13 gang will murder her and her daughter. ld. She further testified that the MS-I3 is active throughout El Salvador, so there is nowhere in the country where she could safely live. She stated that her daughter remains traumatized by the threats and violence she witnessed. ld. B.

Supporting Documentation

The respondent submitted numerous personal documents in support ofher applications for relief. Exhs. 2-4. The record contains the respondents' birth certificates and Salvadoran passports. Exb. 2 at 11-] 4, 15-21. The record also includes the respondent's undergraduate diploma from the University ofEl Salvador, which shows that she is licensed in Business Administration. Exh. 3 at 39-40. The record further contains an Employer Attestation letter from the respondent's former workplace, the Credit Agency of EI Salvador, and accompanying pay stubs. Exh. 3 at 43-55; Exh. 2 at 28-29. The respondent also provided a copy of the United States Employment Authorization Documents ofher mother and aunt. Exh.3 at 61-64. In addition, the record contains various affidavits from the res ondent's fami] members and friends. Em. 3 at 169-180. The record includes the affidavit of _ the respondent's sister, in which the affiant corroborates the respondent's account of extortion at the hands of the MS-13 and confirms that her own life partner,• • • • • • _ was assassinated by MS-13 at gun point on July 23,2009. Exh.3 at 169. The record also includes the affidavit 0 the respondent's former neighbor, in which the declarant describes witnessing the . i to the r ondent's home. Exh. 3 at 174. The record further contains the affidavit of the respondent's former neighbor, in which the affiant provides an eye-witness account ofthe gang members' extortion of the respondent and their "staining the walls ofher house with the distinctive logo of their gang." Exh. 3 at 176. The record also includes the affidavit of the respondent's former neighbor, which further corroborates the respondent's testimony. Exh.3 at 178. Finally, the record contains the affidavit o~e respondent's neighbor, which also corroborates the respondent's account of extortion at the hands of the MS-13. Exh. 3 at 180. The respondent submitted additional documentary evidence to corroborate her claim. Exhs.2-3. The record includes two letters that the respondent received from the MS- I3 gang in her mailbox. 5

Exh.3 at 56-57,59-60. Additionally, the record includes a police report filed by the respondent on April 20, 2014, in which she reports specific threats and extortion at the hands of gang members. Exh. 2 at 30-34. The record further contains a photograph ofthe gang-symbol graffiti spray-painted on the respondent's home. Exh. 3 at 58. The record also includes a death certificate of the respondent's brother-in-law, which describes the cause of death as "injuries to the thorax and abdomen from gun shots." Exh. 3 at 171. _._

___ Fin.l\Uy,.the recQId ~lJtainsJhe.repQrt ~d ~UfriculU111 vitae ofAugusta C. p'el Zott~ marriage and family therapist. Exh. 3 at 134-155. Ms. Zotta conducted a psychological evaluation of the respondent on November 1, 2014. Id. at 134. In her report, Ms. Zotta diagnoses the respondent with acute anxiety and depression. Jd. at 138. She further finds that the respondent "has numerous behavioral markers to indicate Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Complex Variety)." Id. The report documents the respondent's self-reported symptoms including frequent migraine headaches, difficulty sleeping, sleep terrors, and short-term memory loss. Id. at 136-137. The report notes that "these conditions are common for survivors ofsevere trauma and could last for years or, indeed, an entire lifetime, without proper treatment." Id. at 137. Ms. Zotta recommends long-term therapeutic counseling to assist the respondent in overcoming her trauma symptoms. Id. at 146. C.

Country Conditions Evidence

The respondent submitted extensive documentation regarding country conditions in EI Salvador. Exhs. 3,4. Additionally, the Court takes administrative notice ofthe 2013 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report for EI Salvador ("HR Report")? The Court has reviewed all ofthe country conditions documentation in the record, and it smnmarizes the relevant portions below. According to the 2013 State Department Report, the ''principal human rights problems [in EI Salvador] were widespread corruption; weakness in the judiciary and the security forces that contributed to a high level of impunity; and abuse, including domestic violence, discrimination, and commercial sexual exploitation against women and children." HR Report at 1. 1.

Violence and Discrimination against Women

El Salvador has the highest rate of femicide, or gender-motivated killing of women, in the world, with over 600 cases documented in 2011. Exh. 3 at 101. "Not only are these murders widespr~ but they are carried out with horrific brutality.... [B]odies generally appear burned, with hands and feet bound. Some have been beheaded, and autopsies reveal that the majority of victims suffer torture and sexual abuse before dying." Id. A climate of impunity for perpetrators prevails, as less than three percent ofreported femicide cases are resolved in court. Id. "Violent aggressors are emboldened by knowing that the chance ofbeing convicted for these horrendous crimes is virtually nonexistent, a fact that only further normalizes the violence." Jd. at 102.

2 See

8 C.F.R. § l003.1(d)(3)(iv) (allowing the Board and, by implication, Immigration Judges, to take administrative notice of"commonly known facts such as current events or the contents of official documents"); see also Maller olSM-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722,729 (BIA 1997).

6

Gender-based discrimination is pervasive in El Salvador. Id. at 107-129, 186-187; HR Report at 17. According to the United Nations Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women ("UN Report"), "Deeply rooted patriarchal attitudes and the pervasiveness of a machista culture that reinforce stereotypes about the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family, the workplace, and society constitute serious obstacles to women's rights, in particular their right to be free from all fonns ofviolence." Exh. 3 at Ill. The 2013 State Department Report likewise found that, "[a]lthough the law prohibits discrimination based on gender, women suffered cultu.ra1 ~nomi~~and so~ie~t!ilscriIDina!iQn~ liKRegort.Dt.17. Salvadoran WQmen etl~unter discrimination in all domains and at all levels ofsociety, ''from education and employment to political participation, contributing to the decline oftheir economic status and to greater vulnerability to violence and exploitation." Exh. 3 at 111. Women in El Salvador face stark disadvantages in the labor market with regards to job placement, safe working conditions, equal pay, sexual harassment, and rates ofunemployment. Id. at 111-112, I 15-117; HR Report at 17. According to the 2013 State Department Report, "Men often received priority in job placement, and women were not accorded equal treatment in traditional male-dominated sectors, such as agriculture and business. Training for women generally was confined to low-and middle-wage occupational areas where women already held most positions, such as teaching, nursing, apparel assembly, home industry, and small business." HR Report at 17. The UN Report similarly found that "women's participation in the labour market is largely concentrated in low-skilled and low-paid industries, such as wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing (principally in maquila plants) and domestic service, and in public, social, or health services." Exh.3 at 112. 2.

Gang Violence and Impunity

Gang violence is rampant in EI Salvador. Exh. 2 at 38-40,41-44,45-46,47-48,49-61. A country of6.1 million people, El Salvador has hundreds ofknown gangs, totaling more than 20,000 members. ld. at 51; Exh. 3 at 78. The MS-I3, also known as the "Mara SalvatnJcha," and the 18th Street Gang are largest street gangs EI Salvador; their operations involve narcotics and arms trafficking, murder for hire, carjacking, extortion, and violent street crime. Exh. 2 at 51. "Extortion persists as a very common and effective criminal enterprise that preys on the collective fear of the populace." Id. Gang members are generally unemployed youth "who do not hesitate to use deadly force when perpetrating crimes." Jd. Recent homicide statistics show that EI Salvador has a per capita murder rate of 43.3 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, making it one of the most violent countries in the world. Id. at 49-50. Furthermore, the Salvadoran government has perpetuated a climate of impunity for gang members. ld. at 36-37, 49-60; Exh. 3 at 65-67, 68-69; HR Report at 4, 7. The 2013 State Department Report notes that "gang members continued to exercise influence within the prisons and judicial system." HR Report at 4. Substantial corruption, gang intimidation, and violence against witnesses "contributed to a climate of impunity for criminal prosecution." ld. at 7. The Salvadoran police force remains ineffective at controlling gang violence for many reasons, including corruption and criminality, inadequate training, arbitrary promotions, insufficient government funding, and legal impediments. ld. at 5; Exh. 2 at 71; Exh. 3 at 85-87. Corruption and collusion with gang members occurs at all levels of government; the former Salvadoran president, Mauricio Funes, "admitted to personally approving payoffs, prostitutes, and other privileges for gang kingpins in 7

exchange for their political support." Exh. 2 at 36; Exh. 3 at 66,68-69, 73. The Salvadoran media practiced self-censorship in its reporting on gangs, due to fear ofretaliation. HR Report at 10. III. ANALYSIS A.

Credibility

..The. Gouncarefully observe(Lthe_resp.ondent's demeanoI and analyzed her te.a.timoJly_foI:consistency, detail, specificity, and persuasiveness. The respondent testified in a consistent, believable, and forthright manner. The Court finds that the respondent testified credibly and that her testimony is entitled to full evidentiary weight. B.

Asylum

To qualitY for a grant of asylum, an applicant bears the burden ofdemonstrating that she meets the statutory definition of a refugee. INA §§ 101 (a)(42)(A), 208(b)(1)(B). The Act defines the term "refugee" as any person who is outside her country ofnationality who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country because ofpast persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account ofrace, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INA § 101 (a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.l3(b). 1.

Past Persecution

To establish past persecution, an applicant must show harm that: (1) rises to the level of persecution, (2) was on account of a protected ground, and (3) was committed by the government or forces the government is unable or unwilling to control. Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646,655-56 (9th Cir.2000). a.

Harm Rising to the Level ofPersecution

Persecution is "the infliction ofsuffering or harm upon, those who differ ... in a way regarded as offensive." Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997). Harm need not be physical in nature to constitute persecution; it may include psychological, emotional, or economic abuse. Moshiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004). Threats ofserious harm "may be compelling evidence ofpast persecution, particularly when they are specific and menacing and are accompanied by evidence of violent confrontations, near-confrontations and vandalism." Id. at 1119; see also Navas, 21 7 F.3d at 658 ("In asylum and withholding ofdeportation cases, we have consistently held that death threats alone can constitute persecution.") In assessing whether an asylwn applicant has suffered past persecution, the Court may not consider each individual incident in isolation but instead must evaluate the cumulative effect of the abuse the applicant suffered. See Krotova v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2005); Matter of o-z- & I-Z- t 22 I&N Dec. 23, 25-26 (BIA 1998). In EI Salvador, the respondent suffered a series of "specific and menacing" death threats t accompanied by ''violent confrontations, near-confrontations, and vandalism." See Moshiri, 383 F.3d at 1119. On various occasions, gang members robbed the respondent on the street, made specific verbal and written death threats, including threatening to murder the respondent's daughter 8

in front ofher before killing the respondent, pointed a gun at the respondent in the presence ofher young daughter, threatened the respondent with wooden bats and their fists, stalked and followed her to and from work, called her a ''bitch'' and other names in public places, and vandalized her home with graffiti of gang symbols. See Exh. 3 at 33-38. The Court notes that they did so in the context of already having murdered her brother-in-law. The Court also takes particular note ofthe repeated threats perpetrated against the respondent and the respondent's young daughter in the presence ofthe child. Taken together, the Court finds that the mistreatment the respondent suffered ._ ris.es tQ tMJ~vel.9fp-~rse~trtion, . _ .

b.

On Account ofa Protected Ground

An applicant must also demonstrate that the persecution she suffered was inflicted on account ofone or more of the five grounds enumerated in the Act: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. INA § 101(a)(42)(A); INSv. Elias-

Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Navas, 217 F.3d at 654-655. For applications governed by the REAL ID Act, the applicant must show by direct or circumstantial evidence that a statutorily protected ground was at least "one central reason" for the past or future persecution. INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i); Matter ofJ-B-N- & S-M-. 24 I&N Dec. 208, 212 (BlA 2007). i.

Membership in a Particular Social Group

Although the Act does not define the phrase ''particular social group," the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") has interpreted it to mean a group whose members "share a common, immutable characteristic" that they "either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences." Matter ofAcosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233 (BlA 1985). Additionally, a group must be defined with sufficient ''particularity'' and have adequate "social distinction" in order to constitute a cognizable social group. Matter ofW-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208, 212 (BlA 2014). Here, the respondent argues that her persecution was on account of her membership in the particular social group of single Salvadoran women who are working professionals. In this case, the proposed group is comprised ofmembers who share the common immutable characteristics of gender, nationality, and marital status. See Mohammedv. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 797 (9th Cir. 2005); Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. at 233; see also Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2013) (finding that marital status is an immutable characteristic). In Acosta, the Board listed sex as a prototypical example of an immutable characteristic that could form the basis of a particular social group. 19 I&N Dec. at 233. In Mohammed, the Ninth Circuit held that sex and nationality are innate characteristics that are fundamental to individual identity. 400 F.3d at 797; see a/so Perdomo v. Ho/der, 611 F.3d 662, 667 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that "women in a particular country, regardless of ethnicity or clan membership, could fonn a particular social group"). Thus, the respondent's social group satisfies the immutability requirement. The proposed social group is also sufficiently particular. See W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. at 21314, Matter ofM-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227, 239 (BlA 2014). The primary focus ofthe particularity requirement is that the group's boundaries can be easily delineated and verified in the society in question. Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2013); W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. at 214. Also, the group must "not be too amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective." M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. at 239. Here, the respondent's proposed social group is defined with clear tenns that 9

create discrete boundaries to delineate group membership: "single," ''women,'' and "working professionals:' See A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388, 393 (BlA 2014); W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. at 214. The group is not overbroad or amorphous; rather, membership is limited to a small segment of society, as few women are working professionals in El Salvador and the status of being unmarried further delimits the group. Therefore, the Court finds that the group satisfies the particularity requirement. Finally-t_thepropos.edgroup is-Bocially distinct._TQestablish.llocial distin~tiQn, _an .appli.cant must demonstrate "that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing the particular characteristic to be a group." W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. at 217. Here, the 2013 State Department Report reveals that women in EI Salvador face endemic cultural, economic, and societal discrimination. HR Report at 17. Female employment is generally relegated to low- and middlewage occupational areas, and few women enter male-dominated fields such as business. ld. Salvadoran society recognizes single, female working professionals as a distinct group because their mere existence subverts patriarchal societal nonns. Here, the respondent testified that she was the only woman working at the managerial level in her office, and that she was the only female professional who lived in her neighborhood. See Exh. 3. Thus, the Court finds that the respondent's social group has the requisite social distinction within Salvadoran society. In sum, the Court finds that members of the respondent's proposed social group possess immutable and innate characteristics, that the social group is defined with sufficient particularity, and that the social group is socially distinct in Salvadoran society. Accordingly, the Court finds that "single Salvadoran women who are working professionals" is a cognizable social group under the Act. ii.

Nexus

The respondent must also show that her membership in the particular social group was at least "one central reason" for the persecution she suffered. INA § 208(b)(l)(B)(i). A "central reason" is a 'i'eason ofprimary importance to the persecutors, one that is essential to their decision to act. In other words, a motive is a 'central reason' if the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant ifsuch motive did not exist." Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). The protected ground "cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate" to another reason for harm, but it need not be the central reason for the harm; it need only be one central reason. See J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 214. The applicant may provide either direct or circumstantial evidence to establish that the persecutor was or would be motivated by the applicant's actual or imputed status or belief. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483. There is sufficient evidence in the record to establish that the respondent's status as a single, female working professional in EI Salvador was at least "one central reason" for her persecution. The respondent testified that gang members targeted her for extortion only after they rifled through her purse and found her bank employee identification card showing her name, photograph, and position at the bank, and they questioned her about her employment. Exh. 3 at 33. As a result of this encounter, the gang began to threaten and extort her two days later. ld. The respondent further testified that gang members identified her as a member of the abovementioned social group based on her fixed schedule, professional manner ofdress, and the fact that she was always alone with her daughter, without a male companion. In addition to the initial encounter, the respondent's subsequent interactions with the gang members demonstrated their interest in targeting her based on 10

~.

her social group. The respondent testified that the gang members frequently used gendered insults to address her both privately and in the street, calling her a "bitch" and a "whore." Exh.3 at 34-35. She further stated that the gang members pointed to her managerial position at the financial institution and professional manner of dress as proof that she could afford their extortion payments. Id. The Court acknowledges that the MS-13 members also may have targeted Respondent for other reasons. However, the facts of this case indicate that the respondent's membership in this particular social group was at least "one central reason" for the persecution she suffered. See INA ____ §_~O~(b)(D(B)(il _ c.

Government Unable or Unwilling to Control

An applicant must demonstrate that the persecution she experienced was inflicted by either the government or forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control. See Navas, 217 F.3d at 655-56. In some circumstances, a country's laws or customs may establish that the government is unable or unwilling to control violence by private actors because it effectively deprives the applicant of any real governmental protection. Matter ofS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1333-34 (BlA 2000). Prior interactions with the authorities can also establish a government's inability or unwillingness to protect the applicant. Faruk v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, the respondent has established that the government of EI Salvador was either unable or unwilling to protect her and others like her from gang violence. Ample evidence in the record shows that the Salvadoran government is unable to control gang violence and has further created a climate of impunity for gang members. Exh. 2 at 36-37, 49-60; Exh. 3 at 65-67,68-69; HR Report at 4, 7. When the respondent attempted to seek protection from the police in Et Salvador, the officers on duty told her that they had no resources available to assist her. Exh.3 at 36; see Faruk, 378 F.3d at 944. This police response is unsurprising, as evidence in the record indicates that many factors-including corruption, criminality, and insufficient funding-render the Salvadoran police force ineffective at curbing gang activity. Exh. 2 at 71; Exh. 3 at 85-87; HR Report at 5. Furthermore, gender-based violence and societal discrimination against women are endemic in El Salvador. Exh. 3 at 107-129, 186-187; HR Report at 17. EI Salvadorreports the highest rate of femicide, or the gender-motivated killing of women, in the world. Exh. 3 at 101. Less than three percent of reported femicide cases are resolved in colU1, leading to a culture of impunity for perpetrators. Id. Based on this evidence, the Court finds that the government of El Salvador is unable or unwilling to prevent situations ofviolence like the respondent endured. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the respondent suffered past persecution on account ofher membership in the particular social group ofsingle Salvadoran women who are working professionals. 2.

Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution

A showing of past persecution generates a presumption ofa well-founded fear offuture persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(I). DHS counsel may overcome this presumption by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in EI Salvador or (2) she could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i). 11 A

·. Here, DRS counsel has not argued that circumstances in EI Salvador have changed since Respondent left the country in May 2014, nor has DHS counsel introduced evidence demonstrating that Respondent could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the country. See Gonzales-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2003) (bolding that DRS counsel must introduce evidence that, on an individualized basis, rebuts the applicanfs specific grounds for fearing future persecution). Thus, DHS has failed to rebut the presumption that Respondent has a well-founded fear of persecution in El Salvador. Based on the above, the Court thus finds that DHS has not met its burden of overcoming the presumption that the respondent possesses a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her membership in the particular social group consisting of single Salvadoran women who are working professionals. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.l3(b)(l)(i)(A)-{B). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the respondent is statutorily eJigibJe for asylum.

IV. CONCLUSION The Court finds that the respondent testified credibly and that she has demonstrated that she suffered past persecution and has a wen-founded fear of future persecution should she return to El Salvador. Thus, the respondent has established that she is statutorily eligible for asylum. The Court grants the 1'~ request for asylum in the exercise of discretion. The Court finds that the respondent " , - s h a l l be granted asylum as a derivative beneficiary ofthe respondent's asylum application under section 208(b)(3) of the Act. Having reached this result, the Court need not examine the respondent's eligibility for withholding of removal under section 241 (b)(3) of the Act or reliefunder the Convention Against Torture. In light of the foregoing, the following orders shall enter: ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent's application for asylum in the United States under section 208(a) of the Act be and hereby is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent the United States under section 208(b)(3) of the Act.

St len S. Griswold Immigration Judge

-

12

e GRANTED asylum in