that's going to come up is a question today's regarding the attorney general's new case that was issued in june of this year a matter of a b and i wanted to first start by touching on that case a little bit and then going back to our case at hand so it's i think one of the burdens of immigration law is that we have quite a bit of flux as to case  internal general being able to step in and have significant change in this case arose under the law of a matter of a or c g which allowed for a married woman in guatemala who was unable to leave her relationship to demonstrate that and pursue and be granted asylum in the facts of the case my case today is that we have a unmarried but partnered woman thought of all that with  fairly stringent and but at the same time it suggests that it's reaching beyond just the case itself as to calling to question any and all domestic violence related claims and so i  by reminding the court that the cases like this are always done on a sunny case by case basis and that no matter what the attorney general can state in the the immigration court decided this case on whether the guatemalan government was able or unable to protect her right not on their recognizable social group i think that's correct that question this the terminology which is unable or unwilling the government today would likely argue and would have us believe that this standard of unable and unwilling should be construed as complete helplessness  that the that the government is one hundred percent on able to do anything if we contemplate the concept of complete helplessness that they reference in their brief and in this case the immigration judge looked at the facts do how do we address domestic violence how do we how does the u s government handle domestic violence cases and not just say nothing not not just straight up deny every single case i think the attorney general in the most recent case matter maybe would would have us deny every single domestic well it's counsel i want to i want to ask you i mean i agree with you that the response of the guatemalan government wasn't particularly effective because she continued to be abused and obviously that's very problematic when you use the word unwilling or helpless i'm not sure that it rises to that standard i'm not sure what the governments exactly can argue but the fact of the matter is you have or straining order and you have twice that you know the police when she called the police went out and looked for the abuser and again not effective because they didn't put a stop to it but it does show some willingness and a lack of helplessness on the part of the quiet amal and government to help so what do we what we do with that well i think we look at for starters we definitely address this on a case by case scenario because i think one of the concerns is if you leave a broad specific review of this circumstance where we have mention we've got the there government of autumn all having issued a protective order but as you indicated that there you didn't really work and what more do we do what is the court system do when a person pursues assistance from their own government and it doesn't work and how how much do we ask of an individual applicant how much do we ask that person to stay home or to stay in the shadows sort of order to wait out the possibility of further future and more survive on the other hand i mean not i don't mean to blame the victim at all but one of the problems with this case is there were fourteen incidents of domestic abuse and she called the authorities twice and it's impossible to know what might have happened had she invoked the authorities and tried to have the authorities put a stop to the abuses other times and so we have a little bit of a of a different scenario here in which the victim didn't didn't sort of seek the help of the government in every scenario so what do we do with that i think we have to look through it look at it through the lens of each individual on a case by case basis and i think we have to look through it look at it through the lens of the country and the country  violence and the much easement culture of that supported and allowed for domestic violence and we see that here in this case we see that with her or her father a century permitting or condoning domestic violence and suggesting that you return with her partner even though is that is it normal that expected that on fourteen different instances that there would be fourteen different reports i mean we we would not we don't see even see the united states and we question is how how many steps how many moments of domestic violence  even here in the united states before person pursues help with the police and i think under the the view of this case we can see that she did take significant steps and i think that that significantly distinguishes this case from  domestic violence but then had a gap of five years so the relationship ended the person they had the applicant was able to feel your relationship starting the relationship having a trial five years ago by then enter the united states and then  pursuing status that's not what we have here we have a very very distinct case and that we have consistent issues with with domestic abuse we have a individual who leaves her hometown flees to the capital lives in the capital for a period of months doesn't inform  i don't believe there's a specific response as to why she did not expect that kind even in an explanation for the kinds of things that you're talking about as to why the twelve times she just felt it was fruitless for example i think we start that question or analysis with with did she go to the authorities and it we do see quite a few cases where an individual comes in and can claim and does so for having been a victim of domestic violence without having gone authorities here we have instances where she did go to the authorities and where the assistance that the trip to the authorities occurred after an extended period of abuse i should know and so after pursuing help from the unable and complete helplessness because of the concept of a person who is pursuing help and if if the government takes a number of steps which just can't can't provide the protection  so i think when we look at this case and in my last few minutes here i think we have to first evaluate does this does this case demonstrate where the government has been unable when i believe it does does this demonstrate a social group that still qualifies as a social group even after the decision and matter of a b and i believe also that we have a social group demonstrating that's in this case would be that we partnered and you just quoted one woman who has suffered from domestic abuse and the matter of the case matter b or c g does reference there is a significant history in guatemala of domestic violence and that the government has had significant problems in offering protection so by by coming forward by coming forward the case manner of maybe the attorney general is in effect trying to stem the tide of domestic violence cases but is doing so in such a broad stroke that it would it smells like that decision is trying to influence the court system in denying every single case and testimony i should note and we didn't get into this at the a level but the record begins with the immigration judge being quite hostile to the they respond in this case  o the case begins with initial questioning and immediately moves into fairly direct and hostile if they wish another case by the immigration judge and i think that that demonstrated a bias but i think our main focus in this court today i think we could sum it up and in one minute would be that she has demonstrated that she took steps to protect herself she she's demonstrated that she's been the victim of harm and that she's demonstrated th couldn't provide her with the surance that she would not suffer additional abuse so in that case i'd ask the court to approve the matter i also considering that the the case law and matter of may be is or unwilling to help her to protect her from the deplorable harms caused by her partner which we in no way minimize but the fact the matter is the government was able to help her and in fact petitioner concedes the government was willing to help or at least in their brief they wrote it is not that the government is unwilling to intervene been and are unable to control of it so they are unwilling this problem has already despite i mean it's been conceded they were willing to help her so the question before us is whether they were able to and the answer to that question is every single time she asked for help they helped her and we can we can judicial protective order the told melvin to stay away from her that is government ability to help her though those are her initial stages and help but it doesn't really answer the question of follow through so you can issue a restraining order but if there aren't individuals within the government that are willing and able able here to enforce and or you can call your off the police and they can come and be willing to help but if they really don't have the resources to help you find the person who's causing this harm and and make you feel safe isn't that a next step then you'd have to really dig down into that it can't be just the superficial we're here and would like to help i agree it should so let's look at what happened here after she got the judicial protective order she called the police twice and they came running and they chased it away both times and but she didn't go back to the court and say he's violating the order right that's the next step which we're talking about this process to say hey why didn't you go to the judge who said reminded her when she received the protective orders that hey you can come back the protective order self says we're notifying the local police departments that was the next step to say hey the abuse is ongoing because they demonstrate they're willing to help her how can we then jump to say well i guess they weren't able when they didn't know about it she had to go back to them and accept their invitation to say hey we will help you let us know when melvin comes around they chased him away twice they didn't catch him and she was specifically asked she said what did you shoot us what do you think would happen could  or imprisoned interested yeah well maybe she said maybe they could put him in jail suggested i think that yes the government of mother was able to do more to help her if she was she would reach out to them they can't obviously arrest him if they don't know that she's violating the protective order she says she didn't tell her family she didn't tell anybody that he was violating the order but at that point the couple had already demonstrated they were able and willing to help her if only if only really she could she could tell them i don't want to put the burden entirely on her but at that point in this particular proceedings at that point the government said we will help you and at that point she needed to talk to them say ok we can help you and that is to stink i said from the country conditions evidence and the other some of the other cases that are cited where yes women in guatemala are really tough situation and they can't get police help because  that's not this case in this case the police believed her and said that we would help you and the judge believed her and said that we will help you and instead of failing herself with that option she came to the united states that's why this case is an appropriate for an asylum a grant of asylum because at the ten thousand foot level it lacks that either action or inaction by the government that qualifies a person from asylum right either the government has to be the source of the persecution or they're going to be unable or unwilling in the language of this court they have to condone it or be completely helpless to prevent present prevent it and that's not present here here they didn't condone it and they were completely helpless to prevent it and therefore she doesn't qualify for asylum and i have a question about the role of the country reports and here you say that the country put reports would support her assertion that the guatemalan government is just not able to assist women in these situations in general in general but that she's sort of an exception to that in the us cannot show that they wouldn't protect her does the flipout been a maybe this isn't this isn't necessarily relevant for this case but i'm  i'm guessing that if there was a country report that said generally the government is able to help in this case women in this kind of situations but an individual petitioner came forward and said well that may be the country that they haven't been helping me in these ten or twelve times would that be something that the government would believe was proof enough to show as to this individual person the government is unable to help them yes your honor all the country conditions reports and actually all the evidence has to be considered as important to be considered the individual circumstances of each individual applicant has to be taken on a case by case basis which i believe my brother counsel pointed out in a case like that where somebody has come forward and said well the country court is different in the country report please believe me well obviously you protective order i want to just respond to the idea that you know she took significant steps my brother counsel said which is true but that's not the focus of our inquiry the inquiry here is what the government was able and willing to do and here they were able to send out police and chase melvin away on two occasions they were able to issue just a protective order which alerts the local police departments to be on the lookout and i might add by the way that melvin himself thought that the judicial protective order had some force right because he told her that he wanted he wanted that lifted because he was afraid that he's going to jail because of it s ting that they weren't completely helpless i mean there is some ability here at least to the point that melvin was afraid of the judicial productive were and finally to the extent that my brother counsel mentions that he disagrees with her thinks that the condone and completely helps to protect language that is this court's precedent that he disagrees with it i mean it would take it overturning this court's precedent to to go further than i guess or or the condone or completely helpless language that that is the standard in the circuit this question of how did the government help and so that's where we get into evaluating this claim and that is if she takes the step to pursue assistance from the government if the government issues a protective order then pressure of the persecution continued and i think that's the main primary issue in this case is that we have met many of the steps that we don't see in other cases for an individual has taken steps to to ask for assistance and got a level of assistance from the government but the assistance is in effect that it simply did not offer her the protection that she needed to avoid future harm and having been through multiple instances of harm in the past she