Case ID: f-appx_408/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amalia CARLOS DE GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72494.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 6, 2011.
    Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Liza Murcia, Oil, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amalia Carlos de Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mulcasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Carlos de Gonzalez participated in alien smuggling as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where the record reflects that she gave her daughter’s permanent resident card to another alien intending to assist that alien’s entry into the United States in violation of law. See Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 748-49 (9th Cir.2007) (knowing act of assistance to another’s effort to enter the United States illegally is an affirmative act constituting alien smuggling); cf. Aguilar Gonzalez, 534 F.3d at 1209 (no affirmative act of alien smuggling where petitioner did not provide her daughter’s birth certificate for use by another to enter the United States, but merely acquiesced to its use).

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