
    Danny CRUZ-PERDOMO, Petitioner v. Dana BOENTE, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 15-60504 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 8, 2017
    Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, Sheridan Gary Green, Sheridan Green Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner
    Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S, Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Danny Perdomo-Cruz, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal from the IJ’s denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). With respect to his claim for withholding of removal, Cruz-Perdomo principally asserts that the BIA’s determination that religion was not “one central reason” for his persecution is not supported by substantial evidence. Even if we construe some of the record evidence as supporting Cruz-Perdomo’s claim, he fails to show that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to conclude that he is eligible for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C, § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).

Cruz-Perdomo also challenges the denial of his CAT claim. He provides little to no detail to support his assertion that a government official, or someone acting in an official capacity, would instigate or acquiesce in his torture. The BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s denial of CAT relief is supported by substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 353 (5th Cir. 2002).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     