Raquel Anguiano-Perez 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAQUEL ANGUIANO-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74242
Agency No. A030-516-359
MEMORANDUM*
RAQUEL ANGUIANO-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73463
Agency No. A030-516-359
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2012
Pasadena, California
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Raquel Anguiano-Perez, a permanent resident, who is a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) finding her removable for
alien smuggling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition for review.
Anguiano-Perez also challenges the BIA’s denial of her application for
cancellation of removal and its decision not to exercise sua sponte authority to reopen
or reconsider. We lack jurisdiction over these claims.
1. The IJ’s determination that Anguiano-Perez was removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(E)(i) was supported by substantial evidence. Her son admitted to
smuggling aliens across the border to his mother’s nearby house; one of the aliens
testified that Anguiano-Perez stood outside the house and yelled “hurry up!” as the
group ran toward her and then directed them to hide in the closet in which they were
eventually found. Substantial evidence, including the testimony of a Border Patrol
officer observing the house, contradicted Anguiano-Perez’s assertion that she was not
at home when the aliens arrived.
2. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of cancellation
of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 599

-- 2 of 3 --

3
n.5 (9th Cir. 2006). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to exercise
sua sponte authority to reopen or reconsider. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159
(9th Cir. 2002).
PETITIONS DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 3 of 3 --