background” does not demonstrate a nexus between the harm and a protected

ground. Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2021); see also

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free

from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” (citation omitted)). Given the clear

financial motive for the kidnapping, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that Cervantes-Aguilar failed to establish the necessary nexus. See

Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018) (reviewing the denial of

withholding of removal for substantial evidence).

2 21-1371 2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief.

See id. (reviewing the denial of CAT relief for substantial evidence). To qualify for

CAT relief, an applicant must show that the claimed torture would be “inflicted by

or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or

other person acting in an official capacity.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188

(9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)). Cervantes-Aguilar only claims

that the local police disregarded the police report he filed after his kidnapping

because they failed to call him to follow up after accepting Cervantes-Aguilar’s

report. This is insufficient to show acquiescence. 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.”). Cervantes-Aguilar also failed to

demonstrate that he could not relocate elsewhere in Mexico to avoid the threat of

future torture. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 704–05 (9th Cir.

2022).

PETITION DENIED.

3 21-1371