FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO MENDOZA-AYALA, No. 13-73082
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-097-381
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Mendoza-Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision pretermitting Mendoza-Ayala’s application for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for substantial evidence factual determinations, and we review de novo questions
of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err in determining that Mendoza-Ayala was statutorily
barred from establishing good moral character in order to qualify for cancellation
of removal, where substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he
engaged in affirmative acts in support of a smuggling attempt. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales,
487 F.3d 742, 747-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (alien smuggling finding was supported by
substantial evidence where the record reflected that the petitioner provided “an
affirmative act of help, assistance, or encouragement” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)). Mendoza-Ayala’s contention that the agency failed to properly
apply this court’s precedent in making the smuggling determination is without
merit.
Mendoza-Ayala’s contention that the BIA did not sufficiently address issues
he raised on appeal is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at
990 (the BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention” raised by a
petitioner, so long as it “consider[s] the issues raised and announce[s] its decision
2 13-73082
in terms sufficient [for] a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought
and not merely reacted” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73082