FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 30, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSE LUIS ZAMORA-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, No. 19-9554 v. (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, MCKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This petition for review involves a challenge to an immigration judge’s decision on a noncitizen’s application to readjust his status. The noncitizen, Mr. Zamora-Vasquez, sought readjustment of status on the ground that his wife is a United States citizen. The immigration judge rejected the application on the ground that Mr. Zamora-Vasquez is * Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal. We have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). inadmissible because he participated in the smuggling of undocumented persons. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirmed. Mr. Zamora-Vasquez petitions for review, arguing that he remains admissible because he didn’t affirmatively act to help undocumented persons cross the border. We reject his argument, concluding that substantial evidence existed for the immigration judge to find affirmative involvement in a scheme to bring undocumented persons across the border. When the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirms an immigration judge, as in this case, we review the immigration judge’s order as the final agency determination. Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1143, 1150 (10th Cir. 2004). Our level of scrutiny varies based on the nature of the petitioner’s challenge. Mr. Zamora-Vasquez’s challenge stems from his convictions on criminal charges of transporting and conspiring to transport undocumented persons. See p. 4, below. These convictions led the government to argue that Mr. Zamora-Vasquez was no longer considered “admissible,” a requirement for his eligibility to pursue adjustment of status. He responds that he remains admissible because he didn’t commit any affirmative acts to bring undocumented persons across the border. For this challenge, we apply the substantial-evidence standard. See Elzour, 378 F.3d at 1150 (explaining that courts review factual findings under the substantial- 2 evidence standard). Under the substantial-evidence test, we ask whether factual findings are supported “by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence considering the record as a whole.” Id. We apply this standard to the underlying statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). Under this statute, any noncitizen who “knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). This statutory bar on admissibility applies only when a noncitizen performs an affirmative act to knowingly assist undocumented persons to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals