
    Enrique TAPIA GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71972.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    
      Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
    Gregory J. Olive, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le~ fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Enrique Tapia Garcia, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002) (adverse credibility determinations); Cortez-Acosta v. INS, 234 F.3d 476, 481 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (factual findings supporting removability). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Tapia Garcia was removable for alien smuggling where the record contains the smuggled alien’s sworn statement affirming that Tapia Garcia obtained a fraudulent entry visa for her, and that she was paying him to drive her across the border. See Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 592 (9th Cir.2005) (requiring “some form of affirmative assistance to the

illegally entering alien”). Moreover, substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to credit the sworn statement and Officer Rodriguez’s testimony over Tapia Garcia’s inconsistent and implausible testimony concerning whether he confronted the smuggled alien while they were both detained at the border. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2007).

Tapia Garcia’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

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