the contrary, he has introduced the reports of the official complaints as evidence that he received death threats. That reports were created, maintained, and transmitted to the defendant at his apparent request, militates against a finding of government acquiescence in torture. The defendant’s argument is further weakened by the absence of any reports of violence, gang interactions, or anything approaching torture from his early life in Honduras. The defendant apparently resided in his home country without incident until he was nearly thirty years old. See Linker Decl. Ex. A. (“I came to the United States in 1995 to look for a better future.”). If the defendant did experience any violent incidents, he failed to report them. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the defendant’s CAT claim is
holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate government acquiescence in part because he never reported alleged gang incidents to the government and therefore could not prove that the government was even aware of a problem holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line  the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus holding that amtrak is an agency of the government  for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government