Luis Martin Mayorquin Mendoza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS MARTIN MAYORQUIN
MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72012
Agency No. A093-177-392
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Luis Martin Mayorquin Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision finding him inadmissible for engaging in alien
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72012 2
smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of
law. 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 Mayorquin Mendoza
is inadmissible for engaging in alien smuggling where he admitted in a signed
sworn statement that he undertook affirmative acts in aid of a smuggling attempt.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i); Aguilar Gonzalez, 534 F.3d at 1208 (requiring an
affirmative act of assistance or encouragement).
The agency did not err in admitting into evidence Mayorquin Mendoza’s
sworn statement because the record does not demonstrate that his sworn statement
was obtained through egregious or coercive behavior. See Martinez-Medina v.
Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2011).
We lack jurisdiction to review Mayorquin Mendoza’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 --