Margarita Javier De Oliver 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARGARITA JAVIER DE OLIVER,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72908
Agency No. A071-816-292
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Margarita Javier De Oliver, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of removal finding her
removable for alien smuggling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
The government must prove alien smuggling with “clear, unequivocal, and
FILED
JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

convincing evidence” and we review the factual findings for substantial evidence.
Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals and Immigration
Judged improperly relied on I-213 forms to find that she knowingly attempted to
smuggle her goddaughter into the country. However, we have held that an I-213
form is generally admissible. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995).
In any case, the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals also relied
on the transcript of petitioner’s sworn statement, which establishes that petitioner
received calls from Mexico in which she planned the border crossing, left her
daughter at home, traveled to Mexico, picked up her goddaughter, and attempted to
bring her goddaughter across the border using her daughter’s birth certificate.
Petitioner stated under oath that she had been treated “fine” by border officials and
that her statement was voluntary. Petitioner admitted to making this statement at
the border and had an opportunity to cross examine the border officers who took
her statement and prepared the government forms. The record does not compel a
contrary conclusion that petitioner was mistreated by border officers or that any of
the government documents are unreliable.
Petitioner also asserts that in light of her family’s testimony that she was
merely an unknowing passenger, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled contrary
to Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the evidence

-- 2 of 3 --

supports the Immigration Judge’s finding that petitioner actively planned and
attempted to execute the plan to smuggle her goddaughter across the border, which
is unlike the situation in Altamirano.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --