Opinion ID: 1426930
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Chambers's Actions Are Sufficient to Constitute Assistance Under Section 212(a)(6)(E)(i)

Text: As an alternative basis for granting her petition, Chambers argues that her actions do not as a matter of law rise to the requisite affirmative assistance that § 212(a)(6)(E)(i) requires. In support, she cites cases in which divided panels of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have held that the anti-smuggling statute requires an affirmative act of assistance or encouragement beyond either openly presenting an alien to border officials with accurate identification and citizenship papers, Tapucu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 736, 737 (6th Cir. 2005), or mere presence in [a] vehicle with knowledge of [a] plan to smuggle an alien into the United States, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 596 (9th Cir.2005). Our Circuit has yet to set forth anything approaching a bright-line test as to the nature of the actions that will or will not suffice to support a finding that an alien has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided another in illegally entering the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). We need not do so here. Chambers did not present agents at the border with accurate information, as did the petitioner in Tapucu, and she was not mere[ly] presen[t] in the vehicle in which her brother drove Woolcock across the border like the petitioner in Altamirano. She does not qualify as an innocent bystander on any reading of the facts. The fact that no fraudulent documents were used and no payments by Woolcock were made does not overcome the ample evidence to support the IJ's and BIA's findings that Chambers personally arranged to provide transportation for Woolcock into the United States and purposefully deceived customs officials at the time of his attempted entry. Chambers traveled to Canada with the pre-planned intent to bring Woolcock across the border in her car upon her return, and she actively sought to mislead customs officials about Woolcock's residency status in a way that, if believed, would have made it easier for him to enter the United States. There is thus sufficient evidence from which the IJ and the BIA could conclude that she assisted, abetted, or aided Woolcock in his attempt illegally to enter the United States. Section 212(a)(6)(E)(i) requires no more.