Martin Garcia-Rodriguez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70004
Agency No. A055-270-699
MEMORANDUM*
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.
Martin Garcia-Rodriguez, 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 finding him removable. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and due
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-70004 2
process claims, and for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the
government established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that
Garcia-Rodriguez knowingly participated in alien smuggling where Garcia-
Rodriguez admitted that he provided false testimony during the hearing, and
Garcia-Rodriguez testified inconsistently about the names of the smuggled alien
and the smuggled alien’s brother and about whether he examined the smuggled
alien’s passport. See Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 748-49 (9th
Cir. 2007); see also Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, in
light of Garcia-Rodriguez’s inconsistent testimony, the admission of the smuggled
alien’s sworn statement for the limited purpose of establishing the smuggled
alien’s name was probative, fundamentally fair, and did not violate due process.
See Cunanan v. INS, 856 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir. 1988).
In light of the forgoing, we need not reach Garcia-Rodriguez’s contentions
regarding the BIA’s reliance on the Form I-213.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --