Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60508

Summary Calendar

JOSE MANUEL LARA-SALAS,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A074 693 897

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Manuel Lara-Salas (Lara) has filed a petition for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the

immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order finding him inadmissible and ineligible for

adjustment of status due to his involvement in alien smuggling. This court

reviews the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for

substantial evidence. Soriano v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 2007).

Fact findings may not be reversed unless the court finds not only that the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 3, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60508 Document: 00511131138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2010
No. 09-60508

2

evidence supports a contrary conclusion but that the evidence compels it. Id.

“In a removal proceeding, the applicant for admission has the burden of

showing that he is ‘clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not

inadmissible under § 1182.’” Id. at 320 n.1 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(a)).

“Any alien who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted,

abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in

violation of law is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lara did not

meet his burden of proving admissibility. Lara’s admitted transportation of

illegal aliens is sufficient to deny him admissibility, even though he asserts that

the aliens were already present in the United States when he met them. See

Soriano, 484 F.3d at 321. To the extent that Lara continues in his assertion that

he was not aware of the illegal status of the woman and her son, such assertion

was contradicted by the boarder patrol agent’s testimony that the illegal woman

presented him with Lara’s son’s birth certificate, and by Lara’s inability to

explain why the woman was in possession of the birth certificate. In sum, the

evidence does not compel a conclusion that Lara met his burden of establishing

admissibility. See id. at 320. 

Lara’s argument that the admission of the E-166 report on the morning of

the hearing violated his right to due process is without merit because Lara has

failed to show that he was substantially prejudiced by the procedural error he

advances. See De Zavala v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). Lara

had sufficient opportunity to challenge the report’s veracity and authenticity

during the two-week period between the conclusion of the immigration hearing

and the filing of his closing argument. Further, Lara was provided

documentation several months prior to the hearing, which gave him notice that

alien smuggling would be at issue in the proceedings. 

Case: 09-60508 Document: 00511131138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2010
No. 09-60508

3

Lara’s argument that the IJ engaged in improper questioning also is

without merit. An IJ is authorized by statute to “interrogate, examine, and

cross-examine the alien and any witnesses.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). Lara has

shown, at most, that the IJ engaged in thorough questioning, which is

insufficient to show a violation of due process. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d

531, 541 (5th Cir. 2009). 

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 09-60508 Document: 00511131138 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2010