Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
427 F.3d 586 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act § 212(a)(6)(E)(i), a finding of inadmissibility for alien smuggling requires an affirmative act of assistance or encouragement. Mere presence in a vehicle with knowledge that an undocumented alien is being transported is insufficient to constitute alien smuggling.
Facts:
- Emma Altamirano, a citizen of Mexico, resided in the United States on parole status while married to a U.S. citizen.
- On May 20, 2000, Altamirano and her family traveled to Tijuana, Mexico.
- While in Mexico, Altamirano's husband informed her that her father-in-law had planned to smuggle an individual, Juan Manuel Martinez-Marin, into the United States.
- Early the next day, Altamirano, her husband (driving), and her father-in-law attempted to re-enter the U.S. at the San Ysidro port of entry.
- Martinez-Marin, a Mexican citizen, was hiding in the trunk of the vehicle.
- Altamirano knew Martinez-Marin was in the trunk when she entered the vehicle and as it approached the port of entry.
- Altamirano was not involved in planning the smuggling attempt or in physically placing Martinez-Marin into the trunk.
- Immigration officers at the primary inspection station inspected the vehicle and discovered Martinez-Marin.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against Emma Altamirano in Immigration Court.
- Following a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Altamirano's motion to terminate proceedings and found her inadmissible for engaging in alien smuggling.
- Altamirano, the appellant, appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA issued a streamlined decision affirming the IJ's ruling without a written opinion.
- Altamirano, the petitioner, filed a petition for review of the BIA's final order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual's mere presence as a passenger in a vehicle, with knowledge that an undocumented alien is hiding in the trunk, constitute 'assisting, abetting, or aiding' that alien's illegal entry under § 212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Paez, Circuit Judge
No. Mere presence in a vehicle with knowledge that an undocumented alien is hiding inside does not constitute alien smuggling under INA § 212(a)(6)(E)(i). The plain meaning of the statutory terms 'encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided' requires an affirmative act of help, assistance, or encouragement. The court found that Altamirano committed no such affirmative act. This interpretation is consistent with established criminal law principles of aiding and abetting, which require that a defendant actively participate in a venture to make it succeed, rather than being merely a 'knowing spectator.' The court rejected the government's argument that Altamirano's presence lent an 'air of normalcy' to the situation, as this was a post-hoc rationalization not relied upon by the Immigration Judge and was unsupported by the record.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Rymer, Circuit Judge
Yes. While agreeing with the majority's interpretation of the statute requiring an affirmative act, the dissent argues that Altamirano's conduct met this standard. The dissent contends that Altamirano's decision to get into the car and remain in it at the border, with full knowledge of the smuggling plan, constituted an affirmative act. This deliberate presence, according to the dissent, facilitated the smuggling by making the vehicle appear as a normal family car, thereby reducing the likelihood of being stopped. Therefore, the facts support a reasonable inference that she was 'fully on board' and affirmatively helped bring the alien across the border.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the actus reus (the physical act) required for a finding of alien smuggling under U.S. immigration law. By explicitly rejecting 'mere presence plus knowledge' as sufficient grounds, the court raises the evidentiary bar for the government in inadmissibility proceedings under this section. The ruling aligns the civil immigration standard for smuggling with the traditional criminal law doctrine of aiding and abetting, requiring proof of concrete, affirmative participation. This precedent protects individuals from being found inadmissible for passive acquiescence, forcing immigration authorities to demonstrate that the person took a specific action to help the illegal entry succeed.
