NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAYRA SANCHEZ DE PADILLA, No. 15-72291
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-874-617
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Mayra Sanchez de Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to suppress evidence and
withdraw pleadings, and denying her application for cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and
*
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).
claims of due process violations, Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830
(9th Cir. 2014), and review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, Martinez-
Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not err in denying Sanchez de Padilla’s motion to suppress
her statements at the border admitting to attempted alien smuggling, where
advisals regarding her procedural rights were not required at the time of her
statements because she had not yet been placed in formal proceedings. See
Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009) (advisals of
procedural rights must be given to noncitizens in formal proceedings, but formal
proceedings do not commence until the notice to appear is filed with the
immigration court). Sanchez de Padilla’s contention that her statements at the
border were made under duress are not supported by the record. See Carrillo-
Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are
not evidence).
The agency did not err or violate due process in denying Sanchez de
Padilla’s motion to withdraw her written pleadings admitting the charges and
conceding she was removable for attempted alien smuggling. Because her
statements at the border established removability, binding her to her concessions
would not produce an unjust result. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d
2 15-72291
820, 830-32 (9th Cir. 2011) (absent egregious circumstances, including if binding
the noncitizen to the admissions would produce an unjust result, an attorney’s
written admissions are binding on a noncitizen and may be relied upon as evidence
of removability); Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a due-process
claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
The agency did not err or violate due process in pretermitting Sanchez de
Padilla’s application for cancellation of removal, where she cannot show seven
years of continuous residency since she was admitted in any status. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(2); Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2019) (parole is not
considered an “admission” for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)); Padilla-Martinez,
770 F.3d at 830.
As stated in the court’s October 20, 2015, order, the stay of removal remains
in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72291