Vincent Onyeka Aka v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT ONYEKA AKA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72893
Agency No. A061-189-051
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and PARKER,*** Circuit Judges.
Vincent Onyeka Aka (“Aka”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum,
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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 Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Aka’s two nolo
contendere convictions for (1) committing, as a caretaker, a lewd or lascivious act on
a dependent person in violation of California Penal Code § 288(c)(2) and (2) sexual
battery on an institutionalized victim in violation of California Penal Code § 243.4(b),
were particularly serious crimes. The agency properly considered the nature of the
convictions, the circumstances and underlying facts of the convictions (including the
vulnerable nature of the victims involved), the sentence imposed, and whether the
alien would be a continuing danger to the community. Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d
1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Therefore, the agency properly found Aka to
be statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§
1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) & 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii).
With respect to Aka’s CAT claim, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Aka would more likely than not be subjected to torture with the acquiescence of
the Nigerian government. See Garcia-Milan v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033–34 (9th
Cir. 2014). Even if Aka had been subject to persecution by Boko Haram in the past,
he does not identify any evidence that anyone associated with the Nigerian
government would be likely to harm him or acquiesce in such harm. “[E]vidence that
2

-- 2 of 3 --

a government has been generally ineffective in preventing or investigating criminal
activities [does not] raise an inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce in
torture, absent evidence of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to oppose
criminal organizations.” Id. at 1035.
The BIA was not required to address Aka’s additional argument that the IJ had
erred by concluding that the harm inflicted by Boko Haram in the past did not rise to
the level of torture because it had already made a dispositive determination that Boko
Haram did not act with the acquiescence of the Nigerian government.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --