Gonzalo De Jesus Barco Gallo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GONZALO DE JESUS BARCO
GALLO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74369
Agency No. A035-983-216
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit
Judges.
The BIA did not err by holding that the testimony of Barco-Gallo, even if
believed, did not entitle him to asylum or withholding of removal. Testimony that
FILED
APR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
Barco-Gallo was threatened with persecution because of his last name seventeen
years before the BIA’s decision, when the president of Colombia was also named
Barco, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution at the time of the
decision, when President Barco was no longer in power.
Nor has Barco-Gallo shown that the BIA’s consideration of the issue of
asylum for the first time on appeal was “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was
prevented from reasonably presenting his case,” much less that “the outcome of the
proceeding may have been affected.” Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614,
620–21 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Barco-
Gallo had an opportunity to put on evidence of persecution when he presented the
IJ with his claim for withholding of removal, and there’s no reason to think that
Barco-Gallo would have presented more or different evidence of persecution if the
BIA had remanded for the IJ to also consider the evidence under the less
demanding standard applicable to claims for asylum. See, e.g., Pedro-Mateo v.
INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --