JOSEFINA ACOSTA-DE BORJA, ET AL V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-72905 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 13 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEFINA MARISOL ACOSTA DE BORJA; MELISSA BORJA ACOSTA, No. 17-72905 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A206-882-502 A206-882-501 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. Josefina Acosta De Borja and her daughter Melissa Borja Acosta petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and any legal conclusions de novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for review. 1. The agency properly rejected petitioners’ applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners’ “fear of returning to El Salvador is based on general conditions of criminal violence and civil unrest affecting their home country’s populace as a whole.” See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). 2. The agency properly rejected petitioners’ applications for CAT relief. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to show a likelihood of torture with a public official’s consent or acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “general ineffectiveness” in preventing crime is insufficient to show acquiescence). 2 17-72905 PETITION DENIED. 3 17-72905

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.