Case Name: Roberto GARIBO-SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 656 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 15-71304
Parties: Roberto GARIBO-SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Roberto GARIBO-SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71304
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 02, 2016
James B. Rudolph, Esquire, Attorney, Rudolph, Baker & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
Lori Warlick, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration' Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Roberto Garibo-Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual determinations. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Garibo-Sosa engaged in affirmative acts in support of alien smuggling, which statutorily barred him from establishing good moral character in order to qualify for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2007) (an individual "may knowingly encourage, induce, assist, abet, or aid with illegal entry, even if he did not personally hire the smuggler and even if he is not present at the point of illegal entry" (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.