Case ID: f-appx_333/html/0305-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leticia MEDINA DE GALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72207.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2009.
    Susan Elizabeth Hill, Hill, Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leticia Medina De Gallo, 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 finding her inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), and ineligible for relief from removal, as an alien involved in alien smuggling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). .We grant the petition for review and remand.

When considering Medina De Gallo’s appeal, the BIA did not have the benefit of our decision in Altamirano, which held that a petitioner’s presence in a vehicle crossing the United States border, despite knowledge of a smuggling scheme, does not constitute alien smuggling. Id. at 588-589. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to permit the agency to apply Altamirano.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.