Case ID: f-appx_286/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Guillermo Alfonso PINEDA-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71507.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2008.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2008.
    Teodora D. Purcell, Esquire, Aguirre Law Group, APC, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Esquire, OIL, Russell J.E. Verby, Esquire, Teresa A. Wallbaum, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Alfonso Pineda-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order determining that Pineda-Cruz is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i), as an illicit trafficker of marijuana. We have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1206, 1208 (9th Cir. 2004), and we dismiss the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that it had reason to believe Pineda-Cruz knowingly colluded with others in the illicit trafficking of marijuana. Pineda-Cruz’s sworn statement indicated that he accepted $200 to accompany his cousin across the border and was aware that there were drugs in the car his cousin was driving. See Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.2000). We therefore lack jurisdiction over the petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Lopez-Molina, 368 F.3d at 1209.

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