NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 18-3514 __________ ELIANE NUNES-DE ARAUJO MATOS; J. D. A-M., Petitioners, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A208-541-458, A208-541-459) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ______________ Argued September 18, 2019 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, District Judge (Opinion filed: October 22, 2019) William C. Menard [ARGUED] Norris McLaughlin 515 West Hamilton Street Suite 502 Allentown, PA 18101 Counsel for Petitioners William Barr, Attorney General United States of America Lance L. Jolley [ARGUED] Honorable Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. Abigail E. Leach Anthony C. Payne United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent __________ OPINION† __________ MATEY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Eliane Nunes-De Araujo Matos and her daughter are citizens of Brazil applying for asylum to escape the violence of domestic abuse. Although the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) recognized the harms suffered by Matos and the threat to her daughter’s safety, the applications were denied. But the agency’s fact finding is unsupported by substantial evidence, and its decision cannot be supported by the given reasoning. As a result, we vacate and remand. I. BACKGROUND In October 2015, Matos and her daughter received notice that they were removable from the United States. They conceded they entered the United States without authorization and applied for asylum, claiming persecution by Matos’s boyfriend.1 An IJ conducted a hearing on that application, and Matos appeared as the sole witness. Matos † This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Matos and her daughter also applied for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ and the BIA denied both applications, but neither is before this Court. 2 described first dating her boyfriend as a teenager before marrying another man. After Matos separated from her husband, she resumed her relationship with her boyfriend, and both she and her daughter began living with him. The relationship turned abusive. Her boyfriend often returned home appearing “very strange,” demanding intercourse with Matos and threatening to rape her daughter if Matos did not submit. (Id. at 106–110.) Matos did not report the sexual abuse to the police fearing that it would put her daughter “out on the street.” (Id. at 118–19.) And Matos concluded that if she left to live elsewhere “he would come after me anyway,” because “[h]e’s a psychopath.” (Id. at 152.) Around the time these sexual assaults began, Matos began to suspect her boyfriend’s involvement in drug and firearms trafficking. So to end the abuse, she reported her suspicions to the police. Authorities arrested him immediately. Soon after, however, Matos “started hearing that they were ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals