MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Sanchez-Gomez appeals the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, see Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 2013); Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2012), and review the IJ’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, see Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 820 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2016).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Sanchez-Gomez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution on account of a protected ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), because the evidence demonstrates that the kidnappers targeted Sanchez-Gomez based on his perceived wealth, which “will not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the [INA],” In re S-V-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1306,1310 (B.I.A. 2000).

Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Sanchez-Gomez failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture “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.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)). No evidence here demonstrates that a government official had “awareness of [torturous] activity and thereafter breach[ed] his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7). Evidence that a government has been generally ineffective in investigating or preventing crime does not suffice to show acquiescence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013).

We also deny Sanchez-Gomez’s motion for judicial notice of newspaper articles that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

PETITION DENIED.