
    Quintero GONZALEZ-ARLOZONAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70455.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed April 29, 2016.
    Sarah Vanessa Day, Law Offices of Sarah V. Day, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Todd J. Cochran, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Quintero Gonzalez-Arlozonan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Gonzalez-Arlozonan failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in Mexico by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir.2013) (“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.”). We reject Gonzalez-Arlozonan’s contention that the BIA misinterpreted or ignored his testimony. Thus, Gonzalez-Arlozonan’s CAT claim fails. See id. at 1035.

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