Maria E. Blanco 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA E. BLANCO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71085
Agency No. A093-084-028
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Maria E. Blanco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order finding that she knowingly participated in alien
smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUL 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71085 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and due process claims, and
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly rejected Blanco’s contention regarding the reliability of
the Form I-213 where Blanco filed before the IJ a statement of non-objection to the
admission of the form. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995);
see also Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009)
(procedural rights under 8 C.F.R § 287.3 attach only when formal removal
proceedings commence).
According to the Form I-213, Blanco planned to smuggle her undocumented
sister into the United States, arranged for her husband and friend to provide
assistance, and planned for her sister to stay with her upon arrival in the United
States. Blanco therefore “provided some form of affirmative assistance to the
illegally entering alien.” See Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir.
2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --