Opinion ID: 165792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Petitioners' Claim for Relief Under the Convention Against Torture

Text: 16 Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture prohibits the [return] of an alien to a country where it is more likely than not that he will be subject to torture by a public official, or at the instigation or with the acquiescence of such an official. Matter of G-A-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 366, 367 (BIA 2002) (en banc) (citations omitted). A claim under the CAT differs from a claim for asylum or withholding of removal under the INA because there is no requirement that the petitioners show that torture will occur on account of a statutorily protected ground. 17 The Board said nothing about petitioners' CAT claim except to advert to petitioners' failure to meet the standard for that relief. The IJ, on the other hand, explicitly found petitioners credible when they testified that their lives have been threatened by Mr. Trejo and men who work for him. Admin. R. at 147-48, 151. But the IJ concluded that the threats were part of Mr. Trejo's private vendetta and were not made with the acquiescence of any public official or person acting in a governmental position. Id. at 153. Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting the torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to prevent such activity. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7). However, Congress made its intent clear that actual knowledge, or willful acceptance, is not required for a government to `acquiesce' to the torture of its citizens. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). Rather, [w]illful blindness suffices to prove acquiescence. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 354 (5th Cir.2002) (quotations omitted). 18 Petitioners argue that the IJ erred by concluding that they failed to show government acquiescence in the torture they expect from Mr. Trejo if they return to Honduras. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) prescribes a deferential standard for judicial review of administrative findings, which are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 19 We have reviewed petitioners' brief on the CAT issue and their cursory references to the administrative record. Petitioners produced evidence of corruption in the Honduran government and underfunding of police. They failed, however, to show that any reasonable adjudicator, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), would be compelled to find a connection between Mr. Trejo and the Honduran government, or awareness by any public official that Mr. Trejo has threatened petitioners' lives. Therefore, we are not compelled to conclude that any actions that Mr. Trejo might take against petitioners will be with the acquiescence of the Honduran government. 20 The petition for review is denied.