I am pleased to impart outstanding news in the arena of US domestic-violence based refugee and asylum law. Friday, August 9, the Sixth Circuit issued the published decision Tista-Ruiz de Arualip v. Garland, ___ F.4th ___ (6th Cir. 2024), 2024 WL 3736096. Below is a link to the slip opinion. Counsel in the case were Stephen C. Knight at Baydoun & Knight – Trial And Appellate Lawyers, and Kayla Rachal of Rachal Law Group.
Tista-Ruiz de Arualip was a Guatemalan petitioner who sought asylum and withholding due to severe domestic violence against herself, her daughter, and her grandchildren. The decision conveys a strong message that, where the factual record otherwise establishes the elements of strong domestic-violence based claim, the Sixth will suffer no denials which resort to PSG-based legal semantics.
The case doubles down on each of the central holdings of TIA’s case, Zometa-Orellana v. Garland, 19 F.4th 970 (6th Cir. 2021). Indeed, the decision quotes Zometa no less than four times, with special emphasis on page 979, which references the “independent role” of the BIA and Immigration Judges to assess domestic-violence based claims consistently with “international obligations”. (19 F.4th at 979; see slip op. at 9, 12, 13, 17.)
The Court holds that “victims of domestic violence” is not, on its face, impermissibly circular, citing aspects of Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014) indicating that it is *society’s perception of treatment of the group, and not the persecutor’s, that affords it social distinction. (Slip op. at 13-15.) More importantly, the Court holds that no PSG articulation can be dismissed without an independent review of the record “as a whole,” that is also compliant with “international obligations”. (Slip. op. at 21, 13 (citing Zometa-Orellana at 979, but this time italicizing “obligations,” which, I admit, particularly thrills me).)
Again citing Zometa-Orellana, the Court holds that, even under the substantial evidence standard, Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip could not have reasonably relied on the police to be able and/or willing to protect her. States the Court, “after learning of Marvin’s prior abuse and his threat to kill [petitioner’s] family, the record reflects that the police did not inquire as to Marvin’s location, probe further into Marvin’s abuse or the threat, or attempt to make an arrest…Instead, the police questioned the psychological fitness of [petitioner’s daughter].” (Slip op. at 23.)
The Court also makes numerous other rulings, including enforcing Zometa-Orellana’s requirement of remand where the adjudicator improperly applied the now-defunct presumption against domestic violence protection in Matter of A-B-I; and a call-out of the Immigration Judge’s improper conflation of the nexus standard for withholding and asylum, which are different in the Sixth Circuit under Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland, 87 F.4th 838 (6th Cir. 2023).
Many congratulations again to Stephen Knight and Kayla Rachal for this excellent achievement. I could not be more thrilled to see the legacy of Zometa-Orellana cemented and applied in this way.
Here is a link to the slip opinion version of the decision:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0170p-06.pdf