Delfina Galvez Rojo v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELFINA GALVEZ ROJO, No. 14-72517
Petitioner, Agency No. A048-136-410
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Delfina Galvez Rojo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual determinations, and we
*
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).
review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Galvez Rojo
is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where her statements recorded in
the Form I-213, first admitting and then denying alien smuggling, do not compel
reversal of the agency’s conclusion that she knowingly assisted an alien in seeking
entry into the United States in violation of law. See Urzua Covarrubias v.
Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 747-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (alien smuggling finding was
supported by substantial evidence where the record did not compel reversal of the
agency’s finding that the petitioner provided an “affirmative act of help, assistance,
or encouragement” in furtherance of an alien’s illegal entry into the United States
(citation and quotation marks omitted)). Galvez Rojo does not cite to any authority
to support her contention that the BIA improperly used her testimony before the IJ
to reject her contention that her statements denying alien smuggling in the Form
I-213 establish that she was not involved in alien smuggling.
Galvez Rojo’s contentions that the agency applied the incorrect standard in
evaluating her claim for cancellation of removal and failed to provide a reasoned
explanation are belied by the record. We lack jurisdiction to review Galvez Rojo’s
contention challenging the agency’s consideration of the equities in her case as it
2 14-72517
does not constitute a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would
invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); see also Bazua-Cota v.
Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2006) (while “[t]his court retains
jurisdiction over petitions for review that raise colorable constitutional claims or
questions of law,” a petitioner may not attack a discretionary decision simply by
phrasing his abuse of discretion challenge as a question of law).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72517