
    Uwem USANGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70637.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 16, 2011.
    Filed April 6, 2011.
    Uwem Usanga, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offíce of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HUG, W. FLETCHER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Uwem Usanga (“petitioner”), a native and citizen of Nigeria, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not err in determining that petitioner is ineligible for CAT relief. To establish eligibility for CAT relief, an alien must show it is “more likely than not” that he will be tortured in the proposed country of removal. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001). An alien must show that the 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.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Petitioner presented insufficient evidence that his alleged persecutors, a street gang known as the Area Boys, harmed him with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Because petitioner failed to show that any alleged torture would be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, the BIA properly denied relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     