Ruth Jeanette Orellana v. William Barr
925 F.3d 145
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- Petitioner Ruth Jeanette Orellana, a Salvadoran national, suffered long‑term domestic abuse by partner Jose Garcia, including physical assaults, threats with weapons, and death threats; she fled El Salvador in 2010 after learning Garcia planned to kill her.
- Orellana repeatedly sought help from Salvadoran police and family courts (calls for help across years; petitions for protective orders in 2006 and 2009), but police often failed to respond and courts denied or failed to enforce protective orders.
- DHS detained Orellana on arrival (2011). Government stipulated that the abuse constituted persecution on account of membership in the particular social group "Salvadoran women in domestic partnerships who are viewed as property," and that the abuse was persecution, leaving the central issue the Salvadoran government’s willingness/ability to protect her.
- Orellana testified consistently and submitted court records, expert affidavits, and State Department reports showing systemic failures and gender bias in law‑enforcement and courts; the IJ found her credible.
- The IJ (2015) and BIA (2018) concluded the Salvadoran government was willing and able to protect Orellana, relying on isolated official actions (a temporary protective order filing, a six‑day detention of Garcia, and an instance where court staff told her to return another day) while omitting or discounting unrebutted evidence of repeated non‑response and expert country‑condition affidavits.
- The Fourth Circuit granted review, held that the agency distorted and disregarded important, unrebutted evidence, vacated the denial of asylum/withholding/CAT relief, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Orellana's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government was unwilling/unable to protect petitioner from private persecution | Orellana: unrebutted testimony + experts show systemic non‑response and bias; police/courts failed repeatedly, so protection was not meaningful | Gov: government afforded nominal access to legal remedies (protective‑order process; detention in 2009); petitioner didn’t fully pursue remedies and initially delayed reporting | Held: Agency abused discretion by disregarding and distorting significant, unrebutted evidence; remanded for proper consideration |
| Whether agency permissibly relied on isolated official acts to find meaningful protection | Orellana: isolated or token acts do not demonstrate meaningful, enforceable protection | Gov: isolated acts show availability of remedies and that courts/police tried to help | Held: Court rejected reliance on nominal/isolated acts where record shows repeated failures and systemic problems |
| Whether petitioner was required to exhaust or persist in ineffective remedies | Orellana: continuing would have been futile and exposed her to more harm; no requirement to pursue futile remedies | Gov: petitioner abandoned legal process and delayed reporting, undermining claim | Held: Court agreed an applicant need not persist when pursuit would be futile or dangerous; petitioner showed both futility and risk |
| Whether BIA may rely on new factual justification not presented below (changed country conditions) | Orellana: agency did not rely on changed conditions; court should not affirm on new grounds | Gov: argues changed country conditions by 2009 made protection meaningful | Held: Court refused to affirm on a rationale not invoked by agency (Chenery rule); remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011) (agency may abuse discretion by disregarding or failing to explain rejection of significant evidence)
- Zavaleta‑Policiano v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2017) (IJ cannot arbitrarily ignore unrebutted testimony; agency must consider relevant evidence)
- Ai Hua Chen v. Holder, 742 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2014) (review of both IJ and BIA opinions when BIA adopts IJ’s reasoning)
- Hernandez‑Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (applicant alleging private‑actor persecution must show government unwilling or unable to control persecutor)
- Crespin‑Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (government’s willingness/ability to protect is a factual inquiry for the record)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (agency decisions must be upheld on the reasons the agency actually relied upon)