Case Name: Aurelio ZUNIGA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-17
Citations: 677 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 13-72524
Parties: Aurelio ZUNIGA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
Aurelio ZUNIGA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72524
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 10, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed February 17, 2017
Andrew Kenneth Nietor, Attorney, Law Office of Andrew Nietor, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
Rebekah Nahas, OIL, Stefanie A. Svo-ren-Jay, Trial Attorney, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, 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
Aurelio Zuniga-Gareia petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. He challenges certain evidentiary rulings in his proceeding and argues that his due-process rights were violated at his removal hearing and that the government did not provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that there was a reason to believe he was trafficking controlled substances.
We have jurisdiction to review his evi-dentiary and due-process claims, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and review is de novo, Rojas v. Holder, 704 F.3d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 2012). We also have jurisdiction to determine whether the immigration judge had reason to believe that Zuniga-Gareia was trafficking controlled substances and review that claim for substantial evidence. Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1206, 1209-11 (9th Cir. 2004). If the immigration judge had reason to believe that Zuniga-Gareia was trafficking controlled substances, we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying removal order and must dismiss the petition. Id. at 1209. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
The admission of the guest roster was not improper and did not violate Zuniga-Garcia's due-process rights, because the immigration judge offered him a continuance to review it. See Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2009). The testimony about the bolt also did not violate his due-process rights or the rules of evidence for immigration proceedings. In an immigration hearing, evidence is admissible as long as it is "probative and its admission is fundamentally fair." Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir. 2003). This testimony was probative to rebut Zuniga-Garcia's blind-mule theory, and its admission was fundamentally fair because Zuniga-Garcia had an opportunity to cross-examine the testifying officer. See id.
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's and BIA's conclusion that there was reason to believe that Zuniga-Garcia was trafficking controlled substances and removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C). The testimony of several Department of Homeland Security officers indicated that Zuniga-Garcia was stopped at the Mexico—United States border as the owner and only occupant of a car that contained nearly fifty-nine pounds of marijuana. He also lied to the officers about where he was headed. Moreover, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Zuniga-Garcia had personally been involved in modifying the gas tank to conceal controlled substances. Because substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's reason to believe that Zuniga-Garcia was trafficking controlled substances, we lack jurisdiction to review the removal order. See Lopez-Molina, 368 F.3d at 1209.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.