Martha Loera v. Jefferson Sessions , 691 F. App'x 484 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
MARTHA LOERA, No. 15-73127
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-145-219
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.
Martha Loera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo
*
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).
constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Loera 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 Loera’s contention, the agency did not err or violate her due
process rights by admitting the Form I-213, the United States Customs and Border
Protection officer report, and the September 30, 2007, record of sworn statement
into evidence, where the documents were probative and their admission was
fundamentally fair, and Loera did not show that they contained inaccurate
information or were obtained by coercion. See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107,
1109 (9th Cir. 2012); Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“[I]nformation on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in
the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien.”); Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
We reject Loera’s contention that she was entitled to cross-examine the
preparer of the Form I-213 in court. See Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (the immigration
2 15-73127
judge was not required to permit cross-examination of the Form I-213’s preparer
absent evidence of unreliability).
We also reject Loera’s contention that she was deprived of her right to
examine the videotape of her September 30, 2007, interview, where her notice of
objection and request for access to the videotape were untimely. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.31(c).
We grant the motion to withdraw as counsel of record (Docket Entry No. 21)
filed by Peter Duong.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73127