Valdovinos-Corona, et al v. Holder, No. 06-73092 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 06 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VENANCIO VALDOVINOS-CORONA, Petitioner, No. 06-73092 Agency No. A079-778-016 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 1, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: O SCANNLAIN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges. The Immigration Judge ( IJ ) found Valdovinos inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. ยง 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), for knowingly encouraging, inducing, assisting, abetting, or aiding a minor child to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law. After the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) affirmed the IJ s decision, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Valdovinos filed a motion to reconsider in light of Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005), which clarified that an alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(E)(i) only if he engages in an affirmative act of help, assistance, or encouragement. Id. at 592. The BIA denied the motion. Because Valdovinos s petition for review is timely only with respect to the BIA s denial of his motion to reconsider, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 06 (1995); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We review the BIA s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Morales Apolinas v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2008). The BIA properly concluded that by providing his car to his domestic partner s sister as a favor, with the intent that she use it to bring the child into the country illegally, Valdovinos acted affirmatively to assist alien smuggling under section 212(a)(6)(E)(i). See Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting Altamirano s reliance on the well-established meaning of aiding and abetting in the criminal context, which requires the individual to associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed (internal 2 quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Valdovinos s motion to reconsider. PETITION DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
