Maria Rodriguez De Zamora v. ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA RODRIGUEZ DE ZAMORA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72817
Agency No. A79-357-305
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review from Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 2, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and TRAGER,***
District Judge.
FILED
NOV 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Maria Rodriguez de Zamora petitions for review of the BIA's decision
affirming the IJ's removal order and denial of her application for adjustment of
status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny her petition.
Given the parties' familiarity with the facts we do not recount them here.
"Pure questions of law raised in a petition to review a decision of the BIA
are reviewed de novo." De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.
2004). However, findings of fact are conclusive unless "any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B).
The IJ and BIA did not credit petitioner's testimony regarding the alleged
coercion by a border patrol agent in 1997. The IJ and BIA stated that, due to
petitioner's "unclear testimony" and her failure to raise the issue of coercion in
2003 (when she instead said only that her aunt had told her to provide a false
name), they were unable to conclude that her statement was coerced. That
conclusion constitutes an express finding that petitioner's testimony regarding the
alleged coercion was not credible.
Given that finding, the decisions below correctly concluded that petitioner
falsely represented herself to be a United States citizen and that she had done so for

-- 2 of 4 --

3
the purpose of obtaining a benefit under the INA. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii),
1229a(c)(3)(A). As such, her petition is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 4 --

1
Rodriguez de Zamora v. Holder Judge Rymer concurring
No. 07-72817
I concur in the judgment. The BIA’s conclusion that her 2003 statements
rendered Rodriguez de Zamora removable is supported by substantial evidence.
FILED
NOV 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 4 of 4 --