FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARDO BELLO-RAMIREZ, No. 08-74987
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-973-199
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Leonardo Bello-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming
an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable for participating in alien
smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107
(9th Cir. 2003), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact,
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not violate due process by according Bello-Ramirez’s Form
I-213 full weight because the form was probative and its admission was not
fundamentally unfair, and the preparing officer testified at the hearing regarding
the procedures for creating such forms. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th
Cir. 1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a deportation
proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is
fundamentally fair”).
Contrary to Bello-Ramirez’s contention, his Form I-213 provides substantial
evidence to support the agency’s conclusion that he is removable for knowingly
engaging in alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). See Urzua
Covarrubias, 487 F.3d at 748-49.
We lack jurisdiction to review Bello-Ramirez’s contentions concerning
8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) and his detention because he failed to exhaust these issues
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 08-74987
Bello-Ramirez’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-74987