Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0341-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugo GUTIERREZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70322.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 12, 2012.
    Filed Aug. 24, 2012.
    Carol L. Edward, Esquire, Law Offices of Carol L. Edward & Assoc., PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Hugo Gutierrez-Sanchez petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) determination that he is inadmissible based on sufficient “reason to believe” that he was involved in illicit trafficking of marijuana. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised ' on appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in holding that Gutierrez-Sanchez is inadmissible because there is “reason to believe” that he “has been an illicit trafficker in [a] controlled substance.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i). We inquire “whether substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA having ‘reason to believe’ petitioner knowingly engaged in drug trafficking based on all the evidence known to the IJ at the time of the IJ’s decision.” Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, 654 F.3d 826, 836 (9th Cir.2011). The BIA’s determination must be upheld unless “the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2000). The IJ and BIA relied on substantial evidence in the record including Gutierrez-Sanchez’s confession that he was involved in the marijuana grow operation and that the scale, dried prepackaged marijuana, and marijuana seeds found in his room belonged to him, and on the testimony of Detective Sted-man, who interviewed Gutierrez-Sanehez after the raid. Gutierrez-Sanchez’s opposing testimony at his immigration hearing regarding why he confessed and who was in the charge of the grow operation does not “compel a contrary conclusion.” Id.

We also reject Gutierrez-Sanchez’s contention that the IJ failed to evaluate his credibility. While in the relief from removal context, “adverse credibility findings in the eligibility phase must be express and the IJ must offer a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief,” Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.2004) (quotation omitted), this has not been generally extended outside of that context. Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 631 (9th Cir.2011); Gomez-Granillo, 654 F.3d at 837. Moreover, the IJ considered Gutierrez-Sanchez’s testimony, along with the other evidence and testimony, and came to the ultimate conclusion that “[u]n-der these circumstances, [Gutierrez-San-chezj’s claim of innocence along with the claims made by his mother and sister in their testimony are incredible and unpersuasive.” The BIA properly found that this adverse credibility finding was not erroneous.

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