Marcos Villafuerte Rocha 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARCOS VILLAFUERTE ROCHA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72608
Agency No. A079-359-493
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Marcos Villafuerte Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial evidence
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72608 2
the agency’s factual findings. Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Villafuerte Rocha
was inadmissable for alien smuggling where the record contains Villafuerte
Rocha’s sworn statement admitting that he knew the passengers in his car had no
legal documentation to enter the United States, and that he had participated in
making arrangements to pick them up in Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i);
Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
We reject Villafuerte Rocha’s due process claim regarding the manner in
which the immigration officials obtained his statement. See Cuevas-Ortega v. INS,
588 F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir. 1979) (no due process violation because “the bare
assertion that a statement is involuntary is insufficient” to prove coercion).
We lack jurisdiction to review Villafuerte Rocha’s remaining contentions
because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --