Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0818-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gerardo A. DIAZ JAVIER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 16, 2010.
    STE B, Law Offices of Peter J. Musser, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Annette M. Wietecha, Esq., Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil, Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerardo A. Diaz Javier, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Diaz Javier’s contention, the BIA properly determined that he participated in alien smuggling as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). According to his Record of Sworn Statement, Diaz Javier knew that one passenger in the vehicle he drove lacked legal documentation to enter the United States, yet, when the immigration agent asked him for documentation to enter, he nonetheless presented the agent with that passenger’s fraudulent documentation. Thus, Diaz Javier “provided some form of affirmative assistance to the illegally entering alien.” Altamirano, 427 F.3d at 592.

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