
    Antonio ROQUE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72619.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010 .
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this is case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Roque, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable for alien smuggling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir.2007), and review de novo questions of law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Roque was removable for alien smuggling where the record establishes that he provided a safe house and helped arranged transportation for undocumented aliens. See Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2005) (to establish that petitioner engaged in alien smuggling, government “need not prove direct participation in the physical border crossing”).

We reject Roque’s contention that the IJ improperly relied on hearsay evidence. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 309-10 (9th Cir.1995) (the IJ may consider evidence if it “is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”).

Roque’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.
     