Opinion ID: 2982411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Finally, Petitioner requests relief under the CAT. We previously outlined the complex issue of statutory-interpretation involved in deciding whether the jurisdiction provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B) and §1252(a)(2)(C) apply to deferral of removal claims under the CAT. See Ali Kassem Abou Khodr v. Holder, 531 Fed. Appx. 660, 664 (6th Cir. 2013). We need not further address that issue here as the BIA’s denial of relief under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence. As the IJ found, Petitioner did not show that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured if removed to Guatemala, and that this torture would occur with the “acquiescence of a public official.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4). While Petitioner may have shown a well-founded fear of violence, he has failed to provide any evidence of “willful blindness” on the part of the Guatemalan government. Amir v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 921, 927 (6th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the petition for review is dismissed in part and denied in part. 5