FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAULA PALACIOS, No. 07-75019
Petitioner,
Agency No. A77-351-631
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.**
Paula Palacios (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico lawfully
residing in the United States, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order finding her removable under Immigration and
Nationality Act § 212(a)(6)(E)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(I), for having
“knowingly . . . encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to
enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law . . . .” This court has
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
This court reviews questions of law de novo, including the application of
law to undisputed facts. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, meaning they are
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 n.1 (1992).
Petitioner argues that she did not affirmatively assist or encourage alien
smuggling as defined in Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir.
2005). In Altamirano, we held that “[t]he plain meaning of [§ 1182(a)(6)(E)(I)]
requires an affirmative act of help, assistance, or encouragement.” Id. at 592. In
other words, mere presence in a vehicle with knowledge of a plan to smuggle
aliens into the United States is insufficient. Id.
Here, Petitioner’s actions extend beyond mere presence and knowledge.
Petitioner first placed her friend in contact with her husband for the purpose of
2
transporting an alien into the United States illegally. She then drove her husband
to pick up a passport for use in the attempted alien smuggling and traveled with her
husband and two children to Tijuana, Mexico. She agreed with her husband to
disclaim any knowledge of the alien’s residency or citizenship status if questioned
by Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers. Finally, she and her husband
picked up the alien in Mexico and attempted to enter the United States via the San
Ysidro Port of Entry. Given these facts, the BIA properly applied the law in
finding that Petitioner affirmatively assisted and encouraged alien smuggling in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182.
The factual findings relied upon by the BIA in reaching its decision are
supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner, while under oath, admitted her part
in assisting and encouraging the attempted alien smuggling to CBP officers. She
does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented here. On the record
before the court, we conclude that “no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to conclude to the contrary.” § 1252(b)(4)(B).
PETITION DENIED.
3