22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T455,MEMORANDUM Juana Ines Salazar-Armenta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding her removable for having participated in alien smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The IJ correctly determined that Salazar-Armenta is inadmissible due to her participation in alien smuggling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(E)®; see also Altamirano, 427 F.3d at 592 . We lack jurisdiction to consider Salazar-Armenta’s contention that the 1-213 form did not demonstrate whether a government agent had informed her of her rights because she did not raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T487,

MEMORANDUM

Juana Ines Salazar-Armenta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding her removable for having participated in alien smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ correctly determined that Salazar-Armenta is inadmissible due to her participation in alien smuggling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(E)®; see also Altamirano, 427 F.3d at 592 .

We lack jurisdiction to consider Salazar-Armenta’s contention that the 1-213 form did not demonstrate whether a government agent had informed her of her rights because she did not raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.