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

** The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO SORIA GONZALEZ, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Nos. 07-74464 08-74588
Agency No. A075-709-407

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 8, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: TROTT and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge. ** Armando Soria Gonzalez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of two final administrative orders issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA’s February 21, 2008 amended order 

# FILED

JUL 05 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Assistance and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), Pub. Law 105-100, and ordered his voluntary departure from th e United States. The BIA’s order dated October 15, 2008 denied his motion to re open the proceedings. This court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. I. The BIA’s February 21, 2008 amended order Petitioner appeals two issues decided in the BIA’s February 21, 2008 amended order. First, he argues the BIA erred in determining that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite good mora l character under NACARA based on his payment to alien smugglers. Second, he argues the IJ erred in refusing to conduct additional factfinding on remand regardi ng his participation in the smuggling activity. This court reviews questions of la w de novo, including the application of law to undisputed facts. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, meaning they are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicat or would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992).3 A. The BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite good moral character for relief under NACARA Petitioner submits the BIA improperly considered his payment to alien smugglers on three separate grounds. First, he argues the BIA impermissibly found he lacked the requisite good moral character for NACARA relief. The BIA, however, may consider the “total conten t of any documentary evidence submitted before the [IJ].” In re A-S-B- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 493, 498 (BIA 2008). Here, Petitioner admitted under oath to paying alien smugglers to bring his mother, father, and brother-in-law into the Unite d States from Mexico illegally. The BIA, having considered Petitioner’s testimony, did not err in remanding proceedings to the IJ with instructions to properly apply the law to the factual record. Second, he contends the record is in sufficient to show his participation in alien smuggling as grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(I). During his removal proceedings, how ever, Petitioner admitted to paying smugglers. Because the record is clearon this issue, Petitioner’s argument is without merit. Finally, Petitioner incorrectly argues that the plain language of § 1182(a)(6)(E)(I) excludes alien-smuggling activ ities undertaken before and after an undocumented alien enters the United Stat es. This court has unequivocally held4 that the language of § 1182 applies to a broad range of conduct. See, e.g. , Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales , 487 F.3d 742, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding “that alien smuggling under § 1182 continues until the initial transporter ceases to transport the alien”); Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft , 394 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An individual may knowingly encourage . . . illegal entry, even if he did not personally hire the smuggler and even if he is not present at the point of illegal entry.”). B. The IJ’s decision not to conduct additional factfinding on remand Petitioner argues the IJ violated his due process rights by declining to conduct additional factfinding on remand c oncerning his participation in alien smuggling. A violation of due process occurs if the proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” See Colmenar v. INS , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). Petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on the issue of alien smuggling during the very proceedi ng in which he admitted to paying an alien smuggler. Further, an IJ has broa d discretion in considering new evidence on remand. The IJ here properly declined to revisit Petitioner’s smuggling activity. II. The BIA’s October 15, 2008 order5 Petitioner appeals the BIA’s Octobe r 15, 2008 order denying his motion to reopen. This court reviews denials of mo tions to reopen for abuse of discretion. SeeCano-Merida v. INS , 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). “Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, th e new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey , 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Matter of Coelho , 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)). Petitioner argues the elapsed time between his payment to smugglers and the BIA’s final administrative decision merits reopening because he can now establish the requisite good moral character for sp ecial rule cancellation of removal under NACARA § 203. The BIA, however, has “discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). In its order, the BIA conclude d that the “mere passage of time does not constitute new evidence which would overc ome [Petitioner’s] heavy burden.” This determination was not an abuse of its discretion. PETITION DENIED

.