Norma AVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 518 F. App'x 544

MEMORANDUM Norma Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that Avila is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)© and denial of Avila’s application for cancellation of removal relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). We deny the petition in part and dismiss the petition in part. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) over Avila’s petition with respect to the BIA’s finding of removability.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that Avila is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)© for “encourag[ing], inducting], assisting], abett[ing], or aidfing] any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law.” Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Avila arranged with a smuggler in Mexico to help transport aliens further north after they illegally entered the United States in exchange for payment and, pursuant to that agreement, picked up several aliens in her car in Calexico.

The fact that she did not directly assist the aliens as they crossed the border does not bar a finding of re-movability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)©. See Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 678-79 (9th Cir.2005). Avila also argues that the agents violated her rights under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(

c) when they failed to advise her of her administrative rights before questioning her. At the time the agents questioned her, Avila had not been placed in “formal proceedings” because the government had not yet issued a Notice to Appear. Therefore, at the time of her questioning, the protections of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(

c) did not apply and Avila cannot establish any violation. Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir.2009). We do not have jurisdiction over Avila’s petition with respect to her claim that the IJ abused his discretion in denying her cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)©; see also Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009). Therefore, we dismiss the petition for review to the extent it seeks review of the discretionary denial of Avila’s application for cancellation of removal. Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.