Opinion ID: 814959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The United Nations Convention Against Torture

Text: Petitioner also seeks withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioners seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture must show that it is “more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed . . . .” 8 C.F.R. § 1028.16(c)(1) and (2); see, e.g., Bonilla-Morales v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1132, 1139 (6th Cir. 2010). Such torture involves “pain or suffering . . . inflicted by, or at the instigation of, with consent or acquiescence of, a public official or any other person acting in official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). Petitioner has not asserted any direct conduct by the Albanian government with respect to his allegations of torture, nor has he shown any acquiescence or complicity in torture by the government, because he never even reported the alleged incidents to the authorities. See Kopyonkina v. Mukasey, 313 F. App’x 762, 769–70 (6th Cir. 2008) (no evidence of government complicity where it cannot be proven what police would have done had incidents been reported). Simply put, Petitioner has not provided any basis for his allegations except mere assertions that he will be tortured. He cannot show government conduct or acquiescence, and he certainly does 6 No. 11-4338 not provide a sufficient basis upon which to disturb the findings of the BIA. The State Department Country Report for Albania does include areas of concern, including arrest and pretrial conditions, but found that “[t]he government generally respected the human rights of its citizens.” (See Administrative Record at 000196.) And the BIA properly found that the record substantiated the IJ’s finding that Petitioner failed to establish any basis for believing that the government would torture or acquiesce in the torture of Petitioner.