Jafet Bojorquez Ake v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAFET BOJORQUEZ AKE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71387
Agency No. A205-467-490
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 17, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Jafet Bojorquez Ake, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration
FILED
MAR 21 2022
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 Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Judge’s (IJ) denial of Bojorquez Ake’s application for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Bojorquez Ake argues he
would likely suffer persecution and/or torture if removed to Mexico because “of
his indigenous Mayan ethnicity and the severe economic deprivation he faced as a
result.” We have jurisdiction to review Bojorquez Ake’s petition for review
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Because the parties are
familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
We review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision where the BIA
relied on the IJ’s reasoning in part but added its own analysis. See Singh v. Holder,
753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2104). “The agency’s findings of fact are conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted).
1. Bojorquez Ake argues the BIA erred by affirming the denial of his
withholding of removal claim because “the government of Mexico systematically
deprived [him] of the basic necessities of life.” Economic deprivation may rise to
the level of persecution if an applicant can establish that he suffered from the
“deliberate imposition of [a] severe economic disadvantage or the deprivation of
liberty, food, housing, employment or other essentials of life” that was sufficiently
2

-- 2 of 4 --

severe to “constitute a threat to [his] life or freedom.” Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 163, 171–73 (BIA 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “mere
economic disadvantage,” Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
2004), or “mere[] conditions of discrimination in the country of origin,” do not rise
to the level of persecution, Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).
Bojorquez Ake credibly testified that he and his family lived in extremely
impoverished conditions in Mexico, surviving by subsistence farming. He also
described instances in which his family was denied medical care, and incidents of
discrimination that prevented him from being employed. However, Bojorquez Ake
does not identify any acts demonstrating that the Mexican government
purposefully relegates Mayan people to poverty. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s decision that Bojorquez Ake failed to demonstrate past persecution or a
likelihood of future persecution.
2. Bojorquez Ake also argues the BIA erred because “the evidence
demonstrates that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in Mexico.”
“Torture is ‘more severe than persecution.’” Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1144
(9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018)).
And it “must be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Id.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

(internal quotation marks omitted). The harm that Bojorquez Ake suffered in
Mexico does not rise to the level of torture, and Bojorquez Ake otherwise relies on
generalized evidence of torture that is not particular to him, see Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s decision that Bojorquez Ake failed to establish eligibility for
relief pursuant to CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --