VICTOR CARRILLO-CARRILLO, AKA Victor Manuel Carrillo-Carrillo v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR CARRILLO-CARRILLO, AKA
Victor Manuel Carrillo-Carrillo,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70891
Agency No. A213-149-935
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Victor Carrillo-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in
Guatemala and thus is not entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70891
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016).
We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Carrillo-Carrillo
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on
account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by
theft or random violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Carrillo-
Carrillo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia,
828 F.3d at 836-37.
Carrillo-Carrillo’s contentions that his right to due process was violated on
account of insufficient translation before the asylum officer, and errors in the IJ’s
analysis of his claims, fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); see
also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a due

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70891
process violation, a petitioner must show that defects in translation prejudiced the
outcome of the hearing.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --