NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RAYMUNDO DIAZ IBARRA, No. 08-74017
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-466-932
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Raymundo Diaz Ibarra, a native and citizen of Mexico, and lawful
permanent resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal questions and
due process claims, and review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Diaz Ibarra
participated in alien smuggling as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where he
testified that he knew his relatives’ intent to bring his niece into the country
illegally, and the border officer testified that Diaz Ibarra referred to the smuggled
child by a false name at the border. See Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d
742, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (knowing act of assistance of another’s effort to enter
the United States illegally); Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 594-96 (9th
Cir. 2005). Diaz Ibarra’s challenges to the reliability of the government’s
documentary evidence are unavailing where the agency’s determination is
supported by the removal hearing testimony alone.
Diaz Ibarra contends the IJ violated his due process rights by asking many
questions and exhibiting bias. This contention fails because the record reflects
Diaz Ibarra had a “full and fair hearing” and a “reasonable opportunity to present
evidence on his behalf.” See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-74017