Ross Vinko Sokolic v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSS VINKO SOKOLIC,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70608
Agency No. A097-469-173
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 6, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sokolic 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
FILED
FEB 08 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 Sokolic 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.

-- 2 of 2 --