Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0747-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Silvia Gomez DE ARENAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72752.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 15, 2011.
    Karla L. Kraus, Esquire, Kraus Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kathryn Deangelis, Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Silvia Gomez De Arenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. 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. Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez De Arenas knowingly encouraged and assisted another alien in seeking entry to the United States in violation of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i); Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir.2005) (requiring an affirmative act of assistance or encouragement in order to establish alien smuggling).

Gomez De Arenas’ claim under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.