context: Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Anguiano failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding the evidence did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner
citation_a.sentence: See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.2010) (denying relief under CAT where only “general evidence of violence and crime” was presented); see also Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2008) (concluding the evidence did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner). Thus, petitioner’s claim for relief under CAT fails.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 600 F.3d 1148, 1152
citation_b.parenthetical: denying relief under CAT where only "general evidence of violence and crime" was presented
citation_b.sentence: See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.2010) (denying relief under CAT where only “general evidence of violence and crime” was presented); see also Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2008) (concluding the evidence did not indicate a particularized threat of torture to petitioner). Thus, petitioner’s claim for relief under CAT fails.