
    Erika Aldana DE MARQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71724.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    George Martin Zaehringer, Law Offices of Martin Zaehringer, Ventura, CA, for Petitioner.
    Julie M. Iversen, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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

Erika Aldana de Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Muka-sey, 534 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aldana de Marquez knowingly encouraged and assisted another alien in seeking entry to the United States in violation of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i); Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir.2005) (requiring an affirmative act of assistance or encouragement in order to establish alien smuggling).

Contrary to Aldana de Marquez’s contention, the agency’s admission of the Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/Inad-missible Alien, was fundamentally fair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995) (admission of Form 1-213 is fair absent evidence of coercion or that the statements do not belong to petitioner).

Aldana de Marquez’s claim under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) is unavailing. See Sa-mayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2009).

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