Case: 21-679, 04/06/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 6 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Gerardo Rengifo-Sifuentes, No. 21-679

Petitioner, Agency No. A099-311-401

v.

MEMORANDUM*

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 29, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Gerardo Rengifo-Sifuentes (“Sifuentes”), a native and citizen of Peru,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his

application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 21-679, 04/06/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 2 of 4

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). As the parties are familiar

with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.

“Where, as here, the Board adopts the IJ’s decision citing Matter of

Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994) and provides its own review of the

evidence and law, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ.” Udo v.

Garland, 32 F.4th 1198, 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). We review the agency’s legal

conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Lopez v.

Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018). “Under [the substantial

evidence] standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the

evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

To receive CAT protection, Sifuentes must establish that he is more likely

than not to experience torture if returned to Peru and that the torture will be

perpetrated by the government or with its acquiescence. See Aguilar-Ramos v.

Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2010). “Torture is defined as ‘an extreme

form of cruel and inhuman treatment’ that is ‘specifically intended to inflict

severe physical or mental pain or suffering.’” Lopez, 901 F.3d at 1078 (quoting

8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)).

1. The record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not

Sifuentes would be tortured if returned to Peru. Sifuentes fears that he will be

kidnapped and killed by criminals who think he has money because he has lived

in the United States. However, “[p]rotection under CAT is based entirely on an

2 21-679 Case: 21-679, 04/06/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 3 of 4

objective basis of fear; there is no subjective component to an applicant’s fear

of torture.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal

quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). As such, “speculative fear of

torture is not sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s burden.” Id.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Sifuentes’s fear of

torture did not rise above a speculative level. Although Sifuentes’s family

members have suffered random criminal acts, such as robbery, burglary, and

attempted extortion, neither he nor his family has ever been subjected to

physical violence, much less torture or threat of torture. The letter that his

brother-in-law received in Peru from an unknown “criminal group” in 2017

contained only a vague demand for a phone call, and the failure to make the call

was not pursued by the criminals. Indeed, his brother-in-law returned safely to

the United States after staying in Peru for a month.

The country reports that Sifuentes submitted show general social unrest,

crime, and corruption in Peru, but that does not suffice to establish his CAT

claim. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per

curiam) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is

not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard.”).

2. Nor does the record compel a finding that the Peruvian government

would acquiesce in any kidnapping or violence committed against Sifuentes.

Governmental acquiescence requires showing “that the public official, prior to

the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter

3 21-679 Case: 21-679, 04/06/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 4 of 4

breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity. Such

awareness requires a finding of either actual knowledge or willful blindness.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7).

Here, Sifuentes admitted that the police agreed to investigate the only

criminal incident that his family brought to their attention. There is no evidence

that the police have breached their legal duty to intervene in the crime. See

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Evidence that

the police were aware of a particular crime, but failed to bring the perpetrators

to justice, is not in itself sufficient to establish acquiescence in the crime.”).

Moreover, although documents in the record describe government

corruption and police ineffectiveness in Peru, the documents also indicate that

the government is working to combat terrorism, prosecute corruption, and

improve the police force. Evidence that a government is taking measures to

combat crime and violence, even if not successfully, supports a finding that the

government is not willfully blind. See id. at 1035.

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination

that Sifuentes did not establish the elements of his CAT claim.

PETITION DENIED.

4 21-679