Gonzalez-Martinez

MEMORANDUM *

The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision that Dioscoro Gonzalez-Martinez (“Gonzalez”) and Yolanda Salas De Gonzalez (“Salas”) (collectively “Petitioners”), husband and wife, shall be treated as arriving aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(13)(C)(iii) for engaging in alien-smuggling after departing the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we affirm because we find substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA’s holding.

1. Standard of Review

When the BIA conducts an independent review of the record, this court reviews the BIA’s decision and not that of the IJ. Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir.2000). This court reviews factual findings, such as whether an alien engaged in alien-smuggling, under the deferential “substantial evidence” standard and upholds the findings “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. (quoting Prasad v. INS, 101 F.3d 614, 616-17 (9th Cir.1996)). This court also reviews adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard. Salaam v. INS, 229 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted).

2. The…

dissenting.

Petitioners are legal permanent residents who have lived in the United States for eighteen years. They have four children, three of whom were born in this country. The majority believes, self-righteously, that they should be deported because they brought three of their young nieces and nephews into this country from Mexico, and two of the three had false papers (one child was, in fact, an American citizen). It is undisputed that all three of the children that they brought back from Mexico actually lived in the United States and had even received public benefits for a period of time. Petitioners had over twenty nieces and nephews who lived in Southern California, most of whom were American citizens and some of whom were not. Given these facts, Petitioners’ claim that they did not know that their niece and nephew lacked proper papers is hardly “not credible.” Nor does it show that they failed to learn the lesson administered by the INS when on one prior occasion they tried to help another relative enter the country.

Whether the majority likes it or not, we are restricted in these cases to accepting or rejecting the grounds and reasoning on which the BIA actually…