Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d 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- 60422 Su m m ar y Cal endar

V IC T O R R E Y N O S O B O R J A , a ls o k n o w n a s V ic to rR e y n o s o -B o rja , P et i t i on er

v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U . S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A 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 d o f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B I AN o. A 200 061 423

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 I A M: * V i ct or R eyn oso B orj a, a na t ive an d ci t i zen of M exi co, seeks a peti t i on f or
r e v ie w o f th e o r d e r o f th e B o a r d o f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls (B IA ) d e n y in gh is ap pl i c at i o n f

o rc anc e l l at i o n o f

r e m o va lpur s uantt o 8 U

. S. C. § 12 29 b. W e de ny Bo rj a ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e g e ne r al l y r e vi e w o nl y t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n e xc e ptt o t he e xt e ntt hatt he im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’ s (IJ ) d e c is io n in flu e n c e s th e B IA

. Zh u v. G on zal es , 493 F. 3d 588 , 593 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7)

. W i t h res pect t o t h e deter m i n ati on t h at B orj a’ s pri or United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April22, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60422 Document: 00511088761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2010N o. 09- 60422

2 c o n v ic tio n p u r s u a n t t o 8 U .S .C

. § 1 3 2 5 fo rtr a n s p o r tin ga n ille g a l a lie n m a d e h im i nad m i s s ibl e und e r8 U

. S. C. § 1 18 2( a) ( 6) ( E) (i) ; t hats uc h o f fe ns e c o ns t i t ut e d a bar to good m oralcharacterun der 8 U

. S

. C

. § 110 1(f ) ( 3) ; an d t h at, i n t h e absen ce of go od m or al c harac t er , he w as st at ut or i l y i nel i gibl e f orc ance l l at i on o f

r em oval und er8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b(b) ( 1) , B orj a has nots how n t hat t he B I A ’ s dec i si on w as ei t h er un consti t u t i o n alor based up on an i n corr ecti n t erpret ati on of § 1 1 8 2 (a )(6 )(E )(i). S ee S ori an o v. G on zal es , 4 8 4 F .3d 3 1 8 , 3 2 0 -2 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Bo rj a c h a l l e n g e s o u r h o l d i n gi n S ori ano , w h i ch fo r e c lo s e d a ll o f th e a r g u m e n ts h e ra is e d b e fo r e th e B IA , h is a r g u m e n t is

u n ava i l i n g. W e ha ve h el d that “ i n t h e absen ce of i n t ervening S u prem e C ou rt pr e c e de nt , ” o ne pa ne l c anno t o ve r r ul e ano t he r pa ne l e ve n i f i tdi s ag r e e s w i t h t he pri orpanel ’ s hol di ng. See Mon t e s ano v . Se af i r s tCom m e r c i alCor p. , 818 F. 2d 42 3, 4 25

- 26 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 7)

. M o r e o ve r , B o rj a’ s ar gum e ntt hatt he G o ve r nm e nt di d not pro vi de suf

f i c i ent evi denc e t o es t abl i sh t hathe had be en c onvi c t ed o f an al i e n s m ugg l i ng s c he m e i s w i t ho utm e r i t

. T h e G ove r nm e ntpr o vi de d b o t h a

c r im in a l co m p la in t a n d a ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n t h a t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t B o rja d id n o t in n o c e n t ly o ffe r a r id e t o a n il le g a l a li e n , b u t a id e d a n d a b e t t e d a n a li e n ’s f ur t he re nt r y i nt o t he U ni t e d St at e s w i t h “ kno w l edg e a nd r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d” t h a tt h e a l i e n h a d e n t e r e d t h e c o u n t r yi n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e l a w. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. DE NI ED

. Case: 09-60422 Document: 00511088761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2010