NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HILDA MUNGUIA, No. 15-70828
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-364-154
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Hilda Munguia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to terminate removal
proceedings and ordering her removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and
review de novo questions of law. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Munguia is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where she knowingly assisted
another alien in seeking entry into the United States in violation of the law. See
Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring an
affirmative act of assistance in order to establish alien smuggling).
Contrary to Munguia’s contention, the agency did not err by admitting the
record of sworn statement, dated August 4, 2005, into evidence, where Munguia
did not show that it contained inaccurate information or was obtained by coercion.
See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (the sole test for admission
of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally
fair; information on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable
in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien); Blanco v.
Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2008) (although deprivation of food and
sleep can affect the voluntariness of a confession, petitioner did not establish that
his will was overborne).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Munguia’s testimony and information contained
2 15-70828
in the record of sworn statement. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048
(9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality of
circumstances). Munguia’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
We reject Munguia’s contention that the BIA failed to analyze arguments
raised on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption
that the BIA did review the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70828