Tapia Garcia v. Holder , 367 F. App'x 858 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENRIQUE TAPIA GARCIA, No. 07-71972
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-813-646
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Enrique Tapia Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
JTK/Research
We review for substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.
2002) (adverse credibility determinations); Cortez-Acosta v. INS, 234 F.3d 476,
481 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (factual findings supporting removability). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Tapia Garcia was
removable for alien smuggling where the record contains the smuggled alien’s
sworn statement affirming that Tapia Garcia obtained a fraudulent entry visa for
her, and that she was paying him to drive her across the border. See Altamirano v.
Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring “some form of affirmative
assistance to the illegally entering alien”). Moreover, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s decision to credit the sworn statement and Officer Rodriguez’s
testimony over Tapia Garcia’s inconsistent and implausible testimony concerning
whether he confronted the smuggled alien while they were both detained at the
border. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007).
Tapia Garcia’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
JTK/Research 2 07-71972