Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alberto BURROLA-MORENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72629.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 15, 2011.
    Joseph Arthur Mbacho, Sr., Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph Mbacho, El Centro, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Burrola-Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination that there is reason to believe an alien is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance. Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2000). We dismiss the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Burrola-Moreno is or has been an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance. See id. at 1120 (“While a generous fact-finder might have believed [petitioner’s] version of the facts, both the BIA and IJ were clearly within reason on these facts and circumstances to conclude otherwise.”). Accordingly, Burrola-Moreno is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (2) (C) (i). We therefore dismiss the petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1206, 1209-1211 (9th Cir.2004).

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