Margarita Ocampo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARGARITA OCAMPO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71293
Agency No. A099-294-901
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Margarita Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding her removable for participating in alien
smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71293 2
questions of law and for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ocampo is
removable for alien smuggling where the evidence indicates she actively assisted
in the alien smuggling attempt. See Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592
(9th Cir. 2005) (requiring alien provide “some form of affirmative assistance to the
illegally entering alien”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ocampo’s contentions that her border
interrogation violated her regulatory rights under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 and violated due
process, requiring the exclusion of the Form I-213, because she failed to exhaust
these contentions before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --