Navarro v. Holder , 387 F. App'x 819 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTA C. NAVARRO, No. 06-72315
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-965-324
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Santa C. Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent
resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of
removal. We have jurisdiction to consider the exhausted claims pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252 and deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for 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).
We review the legal questions and due process claims de novo and factual
findings for substantial evidence. Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204,
1208 (9th Cir. 2008); Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
Contrary to Navarro’s assertion, the Board of Immigration Appeals applied
the correct legal standard and properly distinguished this case from Altamirano v.
Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005). Unlike Altamirano, Navarro admitted at
her hearing that she repeatedly lied to border officers about her brother’s identity
and their relationship knowing that her brother had presented a false birth
certificate at primary inspection. Navarro’s admissions provide substantial
evidence of knowing affirmative assistance of her brother’s attempted illegal entry
using the false birth certificate. It is unnecessary to consider Navarro’s challenges
to the immigration judge’s use of the I-213 because Navarro’s testimony, alone,
clearly establishes the alien smuggling charge.
Navarro also alleges that the immigration judge violated her due process
rights by supposedly failing to consider the totality of the evidence. The record is
to the contrary. The immigration judge simply didn’t believe the version of the
story that Navarro presented at the hearing and the evidence supports the
immigration judge’s ruling.
2
We lack jurisdiction to consider the remaining claims, which were raised for
the first time in this petition for review. They have not been exhausted. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
3