Opinion
No. 05-74574.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
January 21, 2010.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A075-580-176.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision finding him removable for participating in alien smuggling. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 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 IJ's finding that Gomez-Perez is removable for alien smuggling where the record contains evidence that Gomez-Perez knew the smugglee was not his niece Maira, yet indicated to the immigration inspector that the smugglee was Maira and the smugglee was a part of his family. See Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005).
Gomez-Perez's due process rights were not violated by the admission of the smuglee's Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) because the form was probative as to the smugglee's alienage, and its admission was not fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that "[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair," and rejecting argument that a Form I-213 is inadmissible as hearsay). The IJ properly denied Gomez-Perez's request to cross-examine the preparers of the smugglee's Forms-213 and 831 and his Form I-213, because Gomez-Perez did not produce probative evidence that cast doubt on the documents' reliability. See id.
Finally, Gomez-Perez's contention that the IJ violated his duties as a neutral fact finder is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.