
    Luis Martin Mayorquin MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72012.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    Jaime Jasso, Esquire, Law Offices of Jaime Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jennifer Paisner Williams, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Martin Mayorquin Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him inadmissible for engaging in alien smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. 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 Mayorquin Mendoza is inadmissible for engaging in alien smuggling where he admitted in a signed sworn statement that he undertook affirmative acts in aid of a smuggling attempt. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i); Aguilar Gonzalez, 534 F.3d at 1208 (requiring an affirmative act of assistance or encouragement).

The agency did not err in admitting into evidence Mayorquin Mendoza’s sworn statement because the record does not demonstrate that his sworn statement was obtained through egregious or coercive behavior. See Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (9th Cir.2011).

We lack jurisdiction to review Mayor-quin Mendoza’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.
     