# Efrain Antonio Rebollo-Jovel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 11, 1986 · 794 F.2d 441

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475032

## Case

- **Full name:** Efrain Antonio REBOLLO-JOVEL, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 11, 1986
- **Citations:** 794 F.2d 441; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26977
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Beezer
- **Judges:** Beezer, Canby, Wallace
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475032

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Salvadoran whose parents and siblings continued to live in El Salvador without harm had failed to show that his fear of persecution was objectively reasonable
- holding that applicant for political asylum must demonstrate "that potential persecution would be directed at him as an individual" and "would be politically motivated"

## Opinion text

BEEZER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I fully concur in the opinion of the court. I write separately only to point out that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in this case was rendered prior to its decision in In re Matter of Acosta, Interim Dec. No. 2986 (BIA March 1,1985). Consequently, today’s decision cannot answer the question, which was expressly left open in our previous decision in Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463 (9th Cir.1986), as to what effect the BIA’s holding in Acosta should have upon our review of future BIA decisions which use similar language in disposing of asylum claims.
In Vides-Vides , we noted:
In Acosta, the BIA firmly adopted the position that there is no meaningful difference between the standards for asylum and withholding of deportation, thereby expressly rejecting the position adopted in this circuit.
Decisions of the BIA rendered prior to the adoption of this approach in Acosta need not necessarily be read as definitely rejecting differentiating standards for prohibition of deportation and asylum
In light of Acosta, it may be appropriate henceforth to require a more explicit statement from the BIA that, even were it to apply a more generous standard such as required in this circuit, it would still deny the asylum petition____
783 F.2d at 1468 n. 3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475032. Public record. Not legal advice.