
    Marcos VILLAFUERTE ROCHA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72608.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Raul Ray, Esquire, The Law Offices of Raul Ray, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marcos Villafuerte Rocha, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Villafuerte Rocha was in-admissable for alien smuggling where the record contains Villafuerte Rocha’s sworn statement admitting that he knew the passengers in his car had no legal documentation to enter the United States, and that he had participated in making arrangements to pick them up in Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)©; Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 748-49 (9th Cir.2007).

We reject Villafuerte Rocha’s due process claim regarding the manner in which the immigration officials obtained his statement. See Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir.1979) (no due process violation because “the bare assertion that a statement is involuntary is insufficient” to prove coercion).

We lack jurisdiction to review Villaf-uerte Rocha’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     