Case ID: f-appx_507/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ross Vinko SOKOLIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70608.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 6, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 8, 2013.
    Leah W. Hurwitz, Leah W. Hurwitz AP. L.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Janette L. Allen, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent..
    Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and • HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is' suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sokolie failed to raise to the Board of Immigration Appeals his procedural due-process argument that the Immigration Judge erred by failing to develop the record regarding his excuses for filing his asylum application late. Because this is the kind of alleged error that the BIA could remedy, see Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir.2008), Sokolic’s failure to exhaust this issue deprives us of jurisdiction to consider it. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir.2004) (applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)).

The BIA and IJ’s determination that Sokolie was ineligible for withholding of removal because he failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in South Africa is supported by substantial evidence, including evidence- that the assault he endured was an act of common criminal activity, bearing no indication of racial animus. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (9th Cir.2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny Sokolic’s petition to review the IJ’s withholding of removal determination.

DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.