FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA STEPANOVA, No. 05-77299
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-151-790
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Anna Stepanova, a native of Russia and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of removal finding her
removable for alien smuggling and denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
The government must prove alien smuggling with “clear, unequivocal, and
convincing evidence” and we review the factual findings for substantial evidence.
Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).
Stepanova challenges the immigration judge’s finding that she knew her
passengers were illegal. However, this finding is well supported by substantial
evidence in the record, including Stepanova’s I-213, the sworn statements of her
two passengers, and the officers’ testimony at the hearing. The immigration judge
did not violate due process by admitting certified copies of the passengers’ sworn
statements. First and foremost, Stepanova did not object to the passengers’
statements. Moreover, there was no evidence that any of the government
documents were unreliable or that admission of the documents was fundamentally
unfair. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995).
Nor does the record establish a violation of Stepanova’s right to confront
witnesses. The officers who took the passengers’ sworn statements and filled out
the forms testified and the government offered Stepanova an opportunity to cross
examine the officers. Cf. Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 823-24 (9th Cir.
2003) (finding that testimony of a confidential informant was not required where
2
the officer who monitored the conversations testified). Contrary to Stepanova’s
assertion, this case is not like Hernandez-Guadarrama. Stepanova did not object
to the passengers’ statements or seek to cross examine the passengers and the
passengers’ statements were not the only evidence of Stepanova’s knowledge that
her passengers were illegal. Hernandez-Guadarrama, 394 F.3d at 682.
Stepanova’s assertion that the immigration judge prejudged her case is not
supported by the record. After Stepanova gave her version of the events, the
immigration judge expressed concern about credibility and then allowed Stepanova
to further explain the events and respond to the government’s evidence of alien
smuggling. Because Stepanova “had an ample opportunity” to respond to the
charge, the immigration judge’s concern about credibility did not violate due
process. Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006).
Stepanova also challenges the immigration judge’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. We agree with the
Board of Immigration Appeals that even assuming that Stepanova testified
credibly, she failed to establish past persecution or that she would likely suffer
torture if returned to Ukraine. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
3