Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0353-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roberto GARIBO-SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71304
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 02, 2016
    James B. Rudolph, Esquire, Attorney, Rudolph, Baker & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
    Lori Warlick, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration' Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Garibo-Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Garibo-Sosa engaged in affirmative acts in support of alien smuggling, which statutorily barred him from establishing good moral character in order to qualify for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2007) (an individual “may knowingly encourage, induce, assist, abet, or aid with illegal entry, even if he did not personally hire the smuggler and even if he is not present at the point of illegal entry” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.