Flora Antonio De Venegas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLORA ANTONIO DE VENEGAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70441
Agency No. A098-212-901
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Flora Antonio de Venegas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to terminate removal
proceedings and ordering her removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70441
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and
review de novo questions of law. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on implausibility in Antonio de Venegas’ and her husband’s testimony, and
inconsistencies between Antonio de Venegas’s testimony and information
contained in the record of sworn statement. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality
of circumstances). Antonio de Venegas’s explanations do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Antonio de Venegas
is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), for knowingly assisting another
alien in seeking entry into the United States in violation of the law. See Altamirano
v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir. 2005) (requiring an affirmative act of
assistance in order to establish alien smuggling).
We reject Antonio de Venegas’ contention that the BIA failed to consider
evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency
need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70441
did review the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --