NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JESUS SALVADOR

PENA- ) No. 13-73363 M OR A LES, ) ) Age n c y

No. A079-804-855 Pe titione r, ) ) M EM OR

A NDUM * v. ) ) LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y ) Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 8, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd R AW L INSON, C i rc uit Judge s. Je sus Pe na -M o ra le s, a

c itiz e n of M e xic o a

nd a la wful pe rm ane nt re s ide nt of the U nite d State s, pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de c ision upholding the

Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) orde r of re m ova l ba se d upon Pe na ’ s e nga ging in a lie n sm uggling. Se e8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). W e de ny the 

# FIL ED
N OV 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.pe tition.

(1) Pe na

a sse rts tha

t the B IA im

prope rly uphe ld the IJ’ s c re dibility de te rm i nations, be c a

use the IJ c le arly

e rre d 1 whe n she de te rm ine d tha t he wa s not
c re d ible
. W e disa gre e . W e have c are fully re vie we d the re c ord, inc luding, but not lim ite d to, there ports a

nd te stim ony

of the a ge nts, Pe na ’ s re c orde d sta te m e nts a t the t im e of the inc i de nt, Pe na ’ s te stim ony , his de c la rations, a nd the te stim o ny

of his wife . W e c onc lude tha t substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the de te rm inations by

the B IA and the IJ. Se e Ai J

un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014); s e e also IN S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1, 483–84, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 & n.1, 817, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). M ore ove r, the re c o rd supports the de te rm ination tha

t Pe na ’ s sta

te m e nts we re not a re sult of dure ss or c oe rc ion. 2 Se e G onzaga-Orte ga v . Holde r , 736 F.3d 795, 804 (9th C i r. 2013) ; Samay oa-Martine z v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 897, 902 (9th C ir. 2009). Like wise , the e vide nc e doe s not le a d to a c onc l usion tha

t he wa s unde r
c rim ina l inve stiga

tion a t the tim e or tha

t 8 C .F.R . § 292.5(b) otherwise a pplie s to

1 Oshodi v . Holde r , 729 F.3d 883, 892 (9th C i r. 2013) (e n ba nc ); R odrigue

z v . Holde r , 683 F.3d 1164, 1171–72 (9th C ir. 2012); se ealso A nde rson v . C ity of Be sse m e r C ity , 470 U.S. 564, 574–76, 105 S. C t. 1504, 1512, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985).

2 Thus, his c l a im that 8 C .F.R . § 287.8(c )(2)(vii) wa s viola te d a lso fa ils. 2him
. Se e Gonzaga-Orte ga , 736 F.3d a

t 804. (2) Pe na

a lso m ounts other e v ide nt ia ry atta c ks on there c ord, but e a c h of those fa ils. He a sse rts tha

t e vide nc e of his re c orde d sta te m e nt should be

e xc lude d be c a use , while the re w a s a

c e rtifie d tra

nsc ript of his sworn sta

te m e nts in a

vide o
re c o rding, thevide o re c ording itse lf wa s not a va ila ble . Howe ve r, the re c ord supports the

de te rm inat ion tha

t the gove rnm e nt diligently sought to loc ate the
m issing vide o re c ording, a nd c ould not loc at e it. C

f. He rnande

z-Guadarrama v

. Ashc roft , 394 F.3d 674, 682 (9th C ir. 2005); Saidane v . IN S , 129 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th C ir. 1997). M ore ove r, in his te stim ony be fore the IJ he a dm i tte d tha t he ha d told thea ge nts tha

t he trie d to sm

uggle an ille ga l a lie n c hild into this c ountry . 3 Pe na a sse rts tha

t he should ha

ve be e n a ble to c ross-e xam ine othe r witne sse s:
one a ge nt whosere port wa s c um ulative , but wa s not shown to be unre lia ble ; 4 the ille g a l a lie n; a

nd Pe na ’ s frie nd (M artine z ) who told the offic e rs tha

t the ille ga l
a lie n c h ild wa s a

Unite d State s c itiz e n. Howe ve r, e ve n if thosewitne sse s c ould

3 On this re c ord we do not find c a use to e xc l ude the tra

nsc ript of thevide o re c o rding, howe v e r, a

bse nc e of the re c ording doe s c a use us c onc e rn. The gove rnm e nt should ta

ke m ore e ffe c tive ste ps to a ssure tha t re c o rdings a

re pre s e rve d whe n it a

ntic ipate s using the

tra nsc ripts the re o f.
4 Se e Espinoza v . IN

S, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th C ir. 1995) (prope r to re ly upon re lia ble I-213 re p orts). 3and should ha ve be e n produc e d, Pe na ha s not shown tha t a ny pre judic e flowe d from the i r a bse nc e , a n d on this re c ord we pe rc e ive none . Se e Roble to-Pastora v
. Holde r , 591 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th C ir. 2010); C inapian v . Holde r , 567 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th C ir. 2009). (3) Pe na

fina l ly a sse rts tha

t the re c ord wa s insuffic i e nt to support a de te rm i nation by

c l e ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e 5 tha t he ha d , inde e d, e nga ge d in
a lie n sm uggling. W e disa g re e ; the re c ord offe rs am ple support for tha

t de te rm i nation. Pe tition DENIED.

5 Se e Pe re z-Arc e o v . Ly nc h , 821 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th C ir. 2016); se ealso Landon v . Plase nc ia , 459 U.S. 21, 24, 35, 103 S. Ct. 321, 325, 330–31, 74 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1982); Mondac a-Ve ga v . Ly nc h , 808 F.3d 413, 419–22 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba nc ), c e rt. de nie d, No. 15-1153, __ U.S. __, __, __ S. C t. __, __, 2016 W

L 1046856 (Oc t. 3, 2016). 4