Jose Lara-Salas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 511131138

Jose Lara-Salas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 511131138

Case: 09-60508

Document: 00511131138

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60508 S u m m a r y Calendar June 3, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J O S E MANUEL LARA-SALAS, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R e sp on d en t

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A074 693 897

B e fo r e REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J o s e Manuel Lara-Salas (Lara) has filed a petition for review of an order o f the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the im m ig r a t i o n judge's (IJ's) order finding him inadmissible and ineligible for a d ju s tm e n t of status due to his involvement in alien smuggling. This court r e v ie w s the BIA's legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for s u b s ta n tia l evidence. Soriano v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 2007). F a c t findings may not be reversed unless the court finds not only that the
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60508

Document: 00511131138 Page: 2 No. 09-60508

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

e v id e n c e supports a contrary conclusion but that the evidence compels it. Id. "In a removal proceeding, the applicant for admission has the burden of s h o w in g that he is `clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not in a d m is s ib le under § 1182.'" Id. at 320 n.1 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(a)). " A n y alien who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, a b e tt e d , or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in v io la tio n of law is inadmissible." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Lara did not m e e t his burden of proving admissibility. Lara's admitted transportation of ille g a l aliens is sufficient to deny him admissibility, even though he asserts that th e aliens were already present in the United States when he met them. See S o ria n o , 484 F.3d at 321. To the extent that Lara continues in his assertion that h e was not aware of the illegal status of the woman and her son, such assertion w a s contradicted by the boarder patrol agent's testimony that the illegal woman p r e s e n t e d him with Lara's son's birth certificate, and by Lara's inability to e x p la in why the woman was in possession of the birth certificate. In sum, the e v id e n c e does not compel a conclusion that Lara met his burden of establishing a d m is s ib ility . See id. at 320. Lara's argument that the admission of the E-166 report on the morning of t h e hearing violated his right to due process is without merit because Lara has fa ile d to show that he was substantially prejudiced by the procedural error he a d v a n c e s . See De Zavala v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). Lara h a d sufficient opportunity to challenge the report's veracity and authenticity d u r in g the two-week period between the conclusion of the immigration hearing a n d the filing of his closing argument. Further, Lara was provided

d o c u m e n ta t io n several months prior to the hearing, which gave him notice that a lie n smuggling would be at issue in the proceedings.

2

Case: 09-60508

Document: 00511131138 Page: 3 No. 09-60508

Date Filed: 06/03/2010

L a r a 's argument that the IJ engaged in improper questioning also is w it h o u t merit. An IJ is authorized by statute to "interrogate, examine, and c r o s s -e x a m in e the alien and any witnesses." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). Lara has s h o w n , at most, that the IJ engaged in thorough questioning, which is in s u ffic ie n t to show a violation of due process. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 5 3 1 , 541 (5th Cir. 2009). PETITION DENIED.

3