## Facts

- Jorge Alberto Acosta, a citizen of El Salvador, belonged to a taxi-driver cooperative in San Salvador during the civil conflict.
- Guerrillas pressured the cooperative to join transportation work stoppages; Acosta and others refused and sought neutrality.
- Acosta testified that guerrillas threatened cooperative members; some members were beaten and killed.
- He asserted he feared similar harm if returned to El Salvador.
- He applied for asylum under INA § 208 and withholding of deportation under INA § 243(h).

## Issues

1. What meanings of “persecution” and “well-founded fear of persecution” govern eligibility for asylum under the Refugee Act of 1980 and INA § 101(a)(42)(A)?
2. Who bears the burdens of proof and persuasion, and what evidentiary standard applies in asylum and withholding cases?
3. How is “membership in a particular social group” defined for refugee status?
4. Whether Acosta established a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

## Decision

- The BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed denial of asylum and withholding, leaving voluntary departure in place.
- The BIA held Acosta did not show a well-founded fear of persecution on account of any protected ground.
- The BIA concluded “taxi drivers” or members of a taxi cooperative were not a cognizable “particular social group” because the defining trait (occupation) was not immutable or fundamental.
- The BIA rejected the political-opinion theory where the record showed coercion to participate in a work stoppage during civil conflict rather than punishment for a protected belief.
- The BIA stated that international materials (including the UNHCR Handbook) may be consulted but are not binding or controlling in interpreting U.S. refugee law.
- Because Acosta did not satisfy the refugee definition for asylum, he also failed to satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding.

## Legal Principles

- International interpretive sources regarding refugee protection may be helpful but do not control construction of U.S. asylum statutes.
- The applicant bears the burdens of proof and persuasion in asylum and withholding proceedings and must establish facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Refugee/asylum eligibility requires: (1) fear of persecution, (2) a well-founded fear, (3) persecution on account of a protected ground, and (4) inability or unwillingness to return because of past persecution or the well-founded fear.
- “Persecution” is harm or suffering inflicted to punish an individual for a belief or characteristic the persecutor seeks to overcome; it does not include harm arising solely from civil or military strife.
- A “well-founded fear” must rest on objective, external facts supporting a reasonable fear, not only subjective apprehension.
- A “particular social group” consists of persons sharing a common characteristic that is immutable (cannot be changed) or so fundamental to identity or conscience that they should not be required to change it; an occupation, without more, is generally not such a trait.
- Coercive violence or threats tied to general conflict conditions, without proof of motive linked to a protected ground, does not satisfy the required nexus.

## Conclusion

Matter of Acosta denied asylum and withholding to a Salvadoran taxi cooperative member because the feared harm reflected coercion amid civil conflict without a protected-ground motive, and it established the BIA’s immutability/fundamentality test for “particular social group,” along with core definitions of persecution, well-founded fear, and the applicant’s burden of proof.


Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (B.I.A. 1985)