Josefina Marisol Acosta De Borja; Melissa Borja Acosta v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEFINA MARISOL ACOSTA DE
BORJA; MELISSA BORJA ACOSTA,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72905
Agency Nos. A206-882-502
A206-882-501
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
DEC 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72905
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 of 3 --

3 17-72905
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --