Case Name: Juana Ines SALAZAR-ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-19
Citations: 362 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 06-70748
Parties: Juana Ines SALAZAR-ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 696–698

Head Matter:
Juana Ines SALAZAR-ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70748.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
Dario Aguirre, Esquire, Aguirre Law Group, Denver, CO, for Petitioner.
Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juana Ines Salazar-Armenta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision finding her removable for having participated in alien smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ correctly determined that Salazar-Armenta is inadmissible due to her participation in alien smuggling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)®; see also Altamirano, 427 F.3d at 592.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Salazar-Armenta's contention that the 1-213 form did not demonstrate whether a government agent had informed her of her rights because she did not raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.