FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORA JOSEFINA REGALADO DE No. 06-75182
PERLERA,
Agency No. A094-203-014
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2011 **
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, LUCERO,*** and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
*
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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, United States Circuit Judge for the
Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Dora Josefina Regalado de Perlera, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") decision
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
Reviewing de novo, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2000), we
hold that the BIA correctly determined that Petitioner may not withdraw her plea,
in which she conceded removability and admitted the facts contained within the
Notice to Appear. Aliens "are generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys,
including admissions made by them, absent egregious circumstances."
Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986). We, like the BIA,
find no egregious circumstances here.
Moreover, even if Petitioner were not bound by her lawyer’s concession on
her behalf, Petitioner herself admitted that she attempted to smuggle an alien into
the United States. Petitioner is bound by her own admission and is therefore
removable as an alien who had "aided [another] alien to . . . try to enter the United
States in violation of law." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(I).
We need not determine whether the BIA erred by applying In re Maldonado-
Cruz, 19 I. & N. Dec. 509 (B.I.A. 1988), despite our own decisions in Sangha v.
INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1488 (9th Cir. 1997); Maldonado-Cruz v. INS, 883 F.2d 788,
791 (9th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
2
478, 483 (1992); Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 728 (9th Cir. 1988); and
Bolanos-Hernandez v. INS, 767 F.2d 1277, 1286 (9th Cir. 1985), because the BIA
properly denied Petitioner’s asylum claim on an alternative ground.
We hold that the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s asylum claim on an
alternative ground. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s separate finding that,
even if Petitioner had established past persecution, conditions in El Salvador have
fundamentally changed so that Petitioner "no longer has a well-founded fear of
persecution." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590
F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009) ("Factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence." (internal quotation marks omitted)). As noted in the 2003 State
Department report, El Salvador—Profile of Asylum Claims & Country Conditions,
the FMLN has been integrated into the legitimate government and no longer poses
a danger.
For the reasons stated above, we also affirm the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s
withholding of removal claim. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th
Cir. 2001) ("Th[e] clear probability standard for withholding of removal is more
stringent than the well-founded fear standard governing asylum." (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Petition DENIED.
3