regarding the Board’s relocation decision anywhere in the opening brief. Thus, any claim of error with respect to the BIA’s relocation decision is not properly before this Court. Rodriguez-Tevez’s failure to contest the BIA’s rulings on relocation and on his failure to demonstrate that his past persecution was on account of his membership in the proposed social group renders the Board’s decision on these matters final. Laborers’ Int’l Union, 26 F.3d at 398. Next, Rodriguezr-Tevez argues that the IJ and the Board denied CAT relief based on the wrong legal standard for determining “acquiescence” on the part of the government. He claims that the IJ (and the Board) erroneously relied on the definition of “acquiescence” adopted in Matter of S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1312 (BIA 2000) (<HOLDING>). We have held that the Board’s definition in
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 failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial holding that to establish that a defendant willfully violated the antislructuring law the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful and stating that specific intent to commit the crimes  might be negated by eg proof that defendant relied in good faith on advice of counsel internal quotation marks omitted holding that acquiescence required proof that the government willfully accepted the torturous activity or consented to it holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required