Guzman v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 638 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIGIA MARIA GUZMAN, No. 06-70353
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-581-260
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ligia Maria Guzman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision finding her removable for participating in alien
smuggling. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107
(9th Cir. 2003), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact,
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Guzman
participated in alien smuggling where the record contains Guzman’s sworn
statement admitting she knew the birth certificate she presented to the immigration
officer did not belong to the passenger in her vehicle. See id. at 744.
The determination that Guzman’s sworn statement was not coerced is also
supported by substantial evidence. See Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274,
1278 (9th Cir. 1979) (“the bare assertion that a statement is involuntary is
insufficient” to prove coercion); see also Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th
Cir. 1995) (“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a
government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward
with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.”)
Guzman’s due process rights were not violated by the admission of the
smuggled alien’s Form I-213 because the form was probative and its admission
was fundamentally fair. See id. at 310 (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of
evidence [in a deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its
2 06-70353
admission is fundamentally fair,” and rejecting the argument that a Form I-213 was
inadmissible as hearsay).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 06-70353