FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VENANCIO VALDOVINOS-CORONA, No. 06-73092
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-778-016
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 1, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Valdovinos inadmissible under section
212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), for knowingly encouraging, inducing, assisting, abetting, or
aiding a minor child to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law.
After the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Valdovinos filed a motion to reconsider in light of Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427
F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005), which clarified that an alien is inadmissible under section
212(a)(6)(E)(i) only if he engages in “an affirmative act of help, assistance, or
encouragement.” Id. at 592. The BIA denied the motion.
Because Valdovinos’s petition for review is timely only with respect to the
BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing
that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405–06 (1995); Membreno v. Gonzales,
425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We review the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Morales Apolinas v. Mukasey,
514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2008).
The BIA properly concluded that by providing his car to his domestic
partner’s sister as a “favor,” with the intent that she use it to bring the child into the
country illegally, Valdovinos acted affirmatively to assist alien smuggling under
section 212(a)(6)(E)(i). See Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208
(9th Cir. 2008) (noting Altamirano’s reliance on the “well-established meaning of
aiding and abetting in the criminal context, which requires the individual to
associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he
wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed” (internal
2
quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by
denying Valdovinos’s motion to reconsider.
PETITION DENIED.
3