691 Fed.Appx. 481 (9th Cir. 2017), 15-70828, Munguia v. Sessions
|Citation:||691 Fed.Appx. 481|
|Party Name:||HILDA MUNGUIA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent|
|Attorney:||For HILDA MUNGUIA, Petitioner: Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. TARIGO, Los Angeles, CA. For JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent: Ilissa M. Gould, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Was...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 30, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted May 24, 2017. [**]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A096-364-154.
For HILDA MUNGUIA, Petitioner: Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. TARIGO, Los Angeles, CA.
For JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent: Ilissa M. Gould, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Hilda Munguia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (" BIA" ) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to terminate removal proceedings and ordering
her removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings and review de novo questions of law. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Munguia is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where she knowingly assisted another alien in seeking entry into the United States in violation of the law. See
Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring an affirmative act of assistance in order to establish alien smuggling).
Contrary to Munguia's contention, the agency did not err by admitting the record of sworn statement, dated August 4, 2005, into evidence, where Munguia did not show that it contained inaccurate information or was obtained by coercion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (the sole test for admission of evidence is whether...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP