NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR CARRILLO-CARRILLO, AKA No. 18-70891 Victor Manuel Carrillo-Carrillo, Agency No. A213-149-935 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Victor Carrillo-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an 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 in Guatemala and thus is not entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Carrillo-Carrillo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Carrillo- Carrillo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37. Carrillo-Carrillo’s contentions that his right to due process was violated on account of insufficient translation before the asylum officer, and errors in the IJ’s analysis of his claims, fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a due 2 18-70891 process violation, a petitioner must show that defects in translation prejudiced the outcome of the hearing.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-70891 18-70891 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Victor Carrillo-Carrillo v. William Barr 17 June 2019 Agency Unpublished a82a3c580c18d4b0fc33dac0838353b84e23dc22
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals