FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO O. GONZALEZ, aka Ignacio No. 05-72595
Gonzalez-Lopez,
Agency No. A072-017-474
Petitioner,
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 December 9, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMPSON and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, **
District Judge.
Ignacio O. Gonzalez, a citizen of Mexico and permanent resident of the
United States, was ordered removed for violating INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227, §
237(a)(1)(E)(I) by assisting aliens to enter the United States illegally. Gonzalez
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision
dismissing his appeal and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his
motion to suppress video-taped statements and Form I-213 records.
Where, as here, “the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s
decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039
(9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted). “We review the IJ’s findings of fact
for substantial evidence and will uphold these findings if they are supported by
‘reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.’” Id. at 1039-40. A petitioner contending that the IJ’s findings are
erroneous must establish that the evidence compels reversal. See Singh v. INS, 134
F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998).
The IJ found that statements initially given by the illegal aliens to border
patrol agents shortly after their apprehension were believable. The aliens stated
they paid Gonzalez to smuggle them into the United States. That evidence, along
with testimony from the agents regarding their observations of Gonzalez’s conduct,
support the finding that Gonzalez knowingly assisted the aliens in illegally entering
the United States. The aliens subsequently testified to the contrary, but the IJ did
not believe that subsequent testimony.
2
Because the evidence presented to the IJ does not “compel a reasonable
finder of fact to reach a contrary result,” we are bound by the IJ’s factual
determination. See Kazarian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 580 F.3d
1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2009).
The IJ determined that the border patrol agents did not coerce the illegal
aliens into making their initial statements, and denied Gonzalez’s motion to
suppress those statements. The BIA affirmed that decision. Because the alleged
coercion was the only basis for Gonzalez’s motion to suppress, and because the
record does not compel a finding that the statements were in fact coerced, those
statements, which were probative, were properly admitted into evidence. See
Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3