Martinez-Segova v. Sessions, 696 F. App'x 12

Petitioners Maria Melida Martinez-Segova and her daughter are Salvadoran nationals who applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after domestic violence by Martinez-Segova’s husband.
An Immigration Judge denied relief; the BIA affirmed, finding petitioner had not shown the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect her.
The IJ and BIA credited Martinez-Segova’s testimony and assumed she suffered past persecution on account of membership in a particular social group, but relied on her obtaining an order of protection as evidence of available government protection.
Record evidence included expert testimony and country conditions reports describing El Salvador’s ineffective enforcement of protective orders and widespread institutional failures to protect domestic-violence victims.
The BIA emphasized petitioner’s failure to report certain violations of the protective order to police and treated the existence of the order as undermining her claim of government inability/unwillingness to protect.
The Second Circuit granted the petition, vacated the BIA decision, and remanded for the agency to consider the country conditions evidence bearing on government inability or unwillingness to protect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez-Segova showed the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to protect her from private domestic violence	Country conditions and expert evidence show protective orders are ineffective and police/judges often fail to enforce them; protective order did not prevent husband’s violations	Existence of a protective order and lack of reporting of some violations show available protection and undermine claim of government inability/unwillingness	Court held the agency failed to consider the record country-conditions evidence and remanded for further consideration of whether government protection was ineffective
Whether failure to report order violations is fatal to asylum claim	Reporting may be dangerous or futile given systemic enforcement failures; petitioner did not have to confront police where evidence shows authorities are unwilling/unable to protect	Failure to report undermines claim that government protection was unavailable	Court declined to decide categorically that failure to report is fatal, finding remand required because the agency ignored contrary country-evidence

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA credibility and legal conclusions)
Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2015) (agency cannot ignore record evidence showing authorities unwilling/unable to protect)
Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008) (link between private actor conduct and public responsibility)
Zhi Yun Gao v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2007) (agency need not parse every piece of evidence but must consider the record)
Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2005) (requirement of minimum level of analysis by IJ and BIA for meaningful review)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (courts need not decide issues unnecessary to the ultimate disposition)