Juan Garcia-Ayala v. Loretta E. Lynch , 642 F. App'x 789 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS GARCIA-AYALA, No. 13-71239
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-626-395
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Garcia-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 denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
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.
Garcia-Ayala is statutorily barred from establishing good moral character in
order to qualify for cancellation of removal, where substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s determination that he engaged in an affirmative act in support of alien
smuggling. 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 supported by substantial evidence where the petitioner’s collecting of
money and payment to a smuggler upon delivery of his brother provided “an
affirmative act of help, assistance, or encouragement” (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).
Garcia-Ayala’s contention that the BIA failed to provide adequate reasoning
in making the smuggling determination is without merit. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d
at 990 (“What is required is merely that [the agency] consider the issues raised, and
announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive
that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71239