Amalia Carlos De Gonzalez v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-72494 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 06 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMALIA CARLOS DE GONZALEZ, Petitioner, No. 09-72494 Agency No. A077-962-807 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Amalia Carlos de Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency s factual findings. Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that Carlos de Gonzalez participated in alien smuggling as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), where the record reflects that she gave her daughter s permanent resident card to another alien intending to assist that alien s entry into the United States in violation of law. See Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (knowing act of assistance to another s effort to enter the United States illegally is an affirmative act constituting alien smuggling); cf. Aguilar Gonzalez, 534 F.3d at 1209 (no affirmative act of alien smuggling where petitioner did not provide her daughter s birth certificate for use by another to enter the United States, but merely acquiesced to its use). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-72494
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.
