Case Name: Irma DE SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-19
Citations: 388 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 06-70720
Parties: Irma DE SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
Irma DE SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70720.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 19, 2010.
Maziar Razi, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Larry P. Cote, Esquire, Carol Federi-ghi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Irma De Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision finding her removable for participating in alien smuggling. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's find ings of fact, Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir.2007), and review de novo legal questions, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that De Sanchez is removable for alien smuggling where the documentary evidence indicated that De Sanchez knowingly assisted in the smuggling attempt. See Urzua Covarrubias, 487 F.3d at 748-49; see also Altamirano, 427 F.3d at 595.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.