Sandro Melvin Carrillo- Cocom v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRO MELVIN CARRILLO-
COCOM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73209
Agency No. A088-450-111
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sandro Melvin Carrillo-Cocom, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
MAY 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and de novo claims of due process violations,
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the threats,
rock-throwing, and economic deprivation Carrillo-Cocom experienced on account
of his membership in the Freemasons, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to
the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016 (discrimination,
harassment, and physical encounters without any significant physical violence did
not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Carrillo-Cocom failed to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of his Freemason or political party
membership. Id. at 1018. We reject Carrillo-Cocom’s contention that the BIA’s
decision lacked sufficient clarity, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim), and we
reject his contention that the IJ and BIA overlooked key evidence in the record, see
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 921-22 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly,
Carrillo-Cocom’s asylum claim fails.
Because Carrillo-Cocom failed to meet the lower standard of proof for
12-73209 2

-- 2 of 3 --

asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73209 3

-- 3 of 3 --