Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60508 Su m m ar y Cal endar JOSE M AN U EL LAR A- SAL AS, P et i t i on er v. ERI C H . H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L, Res po nde nt Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 074 693 897 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jose M an u el L ara- S al as (L ara) h as f i l ed a p et i t i on f

or r evi ew of

an order o f t he Boa r d o f

I m m i gr at i o n Appe al s ( BI A) di s m i s s i ng hi s a ppe alo f t he i m m i g ra tion j u dg e’ s (IJ’ s) order f i n di n g h i m i n ad m i ssibl e an d i n el i gibl e f or adj u st m en tof

st atus du e t o hi s i n volvem en t in al i en sm u ggl i n g. Th i s c ou rt revi ew s t h e B IA ’ s l egal concl u si on s de nov o an d i t s f i n di n gs of

factf or s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S ori an o v. G on zales , 4 8 4 F .3d 3 1 8 , 3 2 0 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). Fac tf i ndi ngs m ayno tb e r e ve rsed u n l es s t he c o ur tf i nds no to nl y t hatt he

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 3, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60508 Document: 00511131138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 60508

2 e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts aco n tr a r yco n c lu s io n b u t t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e co m p e ls it. I d.

“ In a re m o val proceedi n g, t h e app l i can tf or adm i ssi on ha s t h e bu rden of show i n g t h at he i s ‘ cl earl y an d bey on d d ou bt entit l ed to be ad m i t t ed an d i s not in a d m is s ib le u n d e r§ 1 1 8 2 .’” Id . a t 3 2 0 n .1 ( q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c)(2 )(a)).

“Any a l i e n who a ta ny t i m e kno w i ngly has e nc o ur ag e d, i nduc e d, a s s i s t e d, a b e tt e d , o ra id e d a n y o th e r a lie n to e n te r o r to tr y to e n te r th e U n ite dS ta te s in v io la tio n o f la w is in a d m is s ib le .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(E )(i). S u bstanti alevi den ce s u pp ort s the B IA ’ s d et erm i n ati on tha tL ara did not m eethi s burd en of

provi n g ad m i ssibi l i t y. La ra’ s ad m itted transp ort ati on of i l l egal al i ens i s suf

f i c i ent t o deny hi m adm i ss ibi l i t y, eve n t hough he as se r t s t hat th e a lie n s w e r e a lr e a d yp r e s e n ti n th e U n ite dS ta te s w h e n h e m e t t h e m . S ee Sor i ano , 484 F. 3d at321. To t he e xt entt hat Lara c ont i nues i n hi s as se r t i on t hat h e w as not aw are of

t h e i l l egal st atus of th e w om an an d h er s on , such a sser t i on w as c ont r adi c t ed byt he bo ar derpat r olage nt ’ s t es t i m ony t hatt he il l egalw om an p rese n tedh i m w i th L a ra ’ s s o n ’ s b ir th certi fi ca te, an dbyL a ra ’ s i n a b i l i ty to e xp l ai n why t h e w o m an w as i n po s s e s s i o n o f t he b i r t h c e r t i f

i c at e . I n s um , t he e vi de nc e doe s notc o m pe lac o nc l us i o n t hatLar a m e thi s b ur de n o f e s t ab l i s hi ng a d m is s ib ility . S ee id . a t 3 2 0 . L ara’ s argum en tt h at th e adm i ssi on of t h e E
- 166 report on t h e m orni n g of t he hear i ng vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtto du e pro c es s i s w i t houtm er i tbe c ause Lara has fail e d t o s ho w t hathe w as s ubs t ant i ally pr ej u di ced by t he pr o c e dur ale r r o rhe a d va n ce s . S eeD e Za v a lav. A sh cr oft , 385 F . 3d879 , 883 ( 5th C i r. 200 4) . La ra h a dsu ff

i ci en t op p ortu n i ty to ch a l l en ge the re p ort’ s ve ra ci ty a n dau th en ti ci ty dur i ng t he t w o - w e e k p e r i o d b e t w e e n t he c o nc l us i o n o f t he i m m i gr at i o n he ar i ng an d t h e f

i l i n g of h i s cl osi n g argu m en t . F u rt h er, L a ra w a s p rov i ded doc um ent at i on se ver al m ont hs pri ort o the hear i ng, w hi c h gave hi m not i c e that a lie n s m u g g lin gw o u ldb e a t is s u e in th e p r o c e e d in g s . Case: 09-60508 Document: 00511131138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2010N o. 09- 60508

3 L a r a ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e I J e n g a g e din im p r o p e rq u e s tio n in ga ls o is w i t ho utm e r i t . An I J i s a ut ho r i z e d b y s t at ut e t o “i nt e r r o ga t e, exam i ne , a nd c r os s- exam i ne t he al i en and any w i t nes se s. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1229a(b) ( 1 ). Larahas s h o w n , a t m o s t, th a t t h e IJ e n g a g e din th o r o u g h q u e s tio n in g , w h ic h is in s u ffic ie n t t o s h o w av io la tio n o f d u e p r o c e s s . S e eW a ngv . Ho ld e r, 569 F. 3d 5 3 1 , 5 4 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). P ET I T I ON D ENI ED . Case: 09-60508 Document: 00511131138 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2010