Belinda Jaramillo v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BELINDA JARAMILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70093
Agency No. A074-807-825
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jaramillo is a native and citizen of Mexico. Since April 10, 2004, she has
been in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) for alien
smuggling. This petition for review is her third. While her second petition was
pending in our court, we granted the government’s motion to remand to the Board
FILED
MAR 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We remanded for further proceedings with
respect to a previously unavailable videotape of interviews conducted by Customs
and Border Patrol officers during secondary inspection at the border in San Ysidro,
California. On remand, the BIA referred the matter in turn to the Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) to review the videotape and for further proceedings. The IJ ruled
against her assertion that her confessions had been coerced. The BIA agreed with
the IJ and dismissed Jaramillo’s appeal.
The IJ’s findings and conclusions were not only not clearly erroneous, but
they were plainly correct in every respect and fully supported by the videotape.
Counsel’s factual assertions to the contrary are disproved by the record and
demonstratively baseless.
The IJ’s denial of Jaramillo’s motion for administrative closure, affirmed by
the BIA, was a correct exercise of discretion.
Jaramillo contends that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira v.
Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) deprived the Immigration Court of jurisdiction to
process her case. We have recently ruled to the contrary. Karingithi v. Whitaker,
913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019).
This record conclusively demonstrates that Jaramillo was removable for
alien smuggling pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i).
18-70093 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Petition DENIED.
18-70093 3

-- 3 of 3 --