Dmitry Sochilo v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 588 F. App'x 590 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DMITRY SOCHILO, No. 12-72560
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-568-275
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges..
Dmitry Sochilo, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Russia,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
*
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).
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sochilo’s contentions regarding alleged
factual errors by the IJ, because he did not raise these contentions before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to consider issues that have not been administratively exhausted).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Sochilo experienced did not rise to the level of past persecution, and that he does
not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Prasad v. INS,
47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, Sochilo’s asylum claim fails. See id. at
340.
Because Sochilo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, we reject Sochilo’s challenge to the agency’s country of removal
designation, because the record supports the agency’s determination that Russia is
the appropriate country of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 12-72560