FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCELA MATIAS-PABLO; MATEA No. 10-70538
PABLO-MATIAS,
Agency Nos. A079-811-154
Petitioners, A079-811-153
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 3, 2011 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: NOONAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and GUILFORD, District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Petitioners Marcela Matias-Pablo and Matea Pablo-Matias (Petitioners)
petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
denying their motions to suppress and applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not
recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Petitioners’ claims are not advanced by their previous motion to suppress the
evidence obtained through the immigration agents’ alleged Fourth Amendment
violations. “[E]ven if such violations occurred, they would not prevent reliance by
the Board . . . on petitioners’ voluntary admission of illegal entry at the subsequent
[removal] hearing.” Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986)
(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases). Petitioners’
“admission[s] constitute[] substantial evidence” supporting the BIA’s conclusion
that they were subject to removal. Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. INS, 640 F.2d 1139,
1140 (9th Cir. 1981).
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s application of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B)’s one-year filing requirement to the undisputed facts of this case,
and we hold that the BIA properly rejected Petitioners’ asylum applications as
2
untimely. Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners are not
entitled to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) because they failed
to establish “that it is more likely than not that [they] would be subject to
persecution on one of the specified grounds.” Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888
(9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Harassment, discrimination,
and economic deprivation do not necessarily constitute persecution. Ghaly v. INS,
58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 2005); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2003). Nor did Petitioners introduce evidence that would compel the
conclusion that they are likely to be persecuted on account of their actual or
imputed political beliefs. Cf. Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895, 900–01 (9th Cir.
2002). The BIA properly considered the fact that Petitioners’ family members
have remained in Guatemala for a number of years “without incident.” Hakeem v.
INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as
stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Petition for review DENIED.
3