Hilda Maria Calvario De Villalobos v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HILDA MARIA CALVARIO DE
VILLALOBOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71758
Agency No. A075-625-025
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2014 **
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hilda Calvario de Villalobos petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal of her appeal of the denial of her motion to
FILED
MAR 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

terminate removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.
We review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Gonzaga-
Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2013). We therefore will uphold
the BIA’s determination that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) met its
burden of proving Villalobos’s inadmissibility unless “any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that DHS established
by clear and convincing evidence that Villalobos aided and abetted alien
smuggling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). Aiding and abetting alien smuggling
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) “requires an affirmative act of help, assistance,
or encouragement.” Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005).
DHS produced credible evidence that Villalobos received a call from her family
asking her to bring her nephew into the United States and then drove with her
husband to Tijuana with her son’s birth certificate, intending to pick up her nephew
in Tijuana and bring him back into the United States using the birth certificate at
the border. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that DHS
clearly and convincingly established that Villalobos’s involvement in the plan to
bring her nephew into the United States amounted to more than mere knowledge of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

or reluctant acquiescence in the plan. See id. at 596 (knowledge of plan
insufficient); Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008)
(reluctant acquiescence in plan insufficient).
Reviewing de novo the purely legal question, Altamirano, 427 F.3d at 591,
we are not persuaded that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) is unconstitutionally vague
as applied to Villalobos. The question that we must decide is whether the statute is
unconstitutionally vague in the circumstances of the petitioner’s case. Rojas-
Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 822 (9th Cir. 2003). We conclude that §
1182(a)(6)(E)(i) gave Villalobos sufficient notice that her actions were prohibited.
See id.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --