N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FELIPE DE JESUS LOPEZ-GOM EZ, AKA Fe lipe J. Lope z Gom e z ; M AR IA VENEGAS-GUER

R A, AKA M a

ria M
. Lope z Ve ne ga s; C E C ILIA V. LOPEZVENEGAS; M AYR

A C A TALINA LOPEZ-VENEGAS, AKA M a yra C
. Lope z Ve ne ga s, Pe titione rs,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-72099 Age n c y Nos. A075-261-306

A075-261-307 A075-261-309 A075-261-311
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 17, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B ER ZON, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione rs Fe l ipe de Je sus Lope z -Gom e z , M aria Ve ne ga s -Gue rra , C e c ilia V. Lope z -Ve ne ga s, a

nd M ayra C ata lina Lope z -Ve ne ga s a

re c itiz e ns of M e xic o who 

# FIL ED OCT 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.e nte re d the Unite d State s without inspe c tion in De c e m be r 1989. In 1997, Lope z Gom e z a p plie d for a sy lum

on be ha lf of him se lf a

nd the othe r Pe titione rs. In the
a pplic ation, Lope z -Gom e z a c knowle dge d tha t Pe titione rs ha d be e n born in M e xic o
and ha d e nte re d the Unite d State s without inspe c tion. In 1998, the form e r Im m i gration a

n d Natura liz at i on Se rvic e pla c e d Pe titione rs into re m ova l proc e e dings. Pe titione rs’ a p plic ation for a s y l um

wa s de nie d in 2000, a

nd the y volunta rily de pa rte d the Unite d

State s in 2005. Some tim e be twe e n 2005 a n d 2008, Pe titione rs re -e nte re d the Unite d State s without inspe c tion. Around 6 a .m . on July

25, 2008, Im

m igration a

nd C ustom s Enforc e m e nt (“ IC E” ) offic e rs e nte re d Lope z -Gom e z ’ s hom e without pe rm ission or a wa rrant. Ac c ording to Pe t itione rs, the IC E a ge nts orde re d the m to sit a t the dining room ta ble an d a ske d the m a

b o ut the ir ide ntity

and a lie na ge . Afte r Pe titione rs a nswe re d the a ge nts’ que stions, the a ge nts re a d the m the ir rights. In Se pte m

be r 2008, IC E initia

te d re m o va l proc e e dings a ga inst Pe t itione rs. Pe titione rs m ove d to suppre ss the e vide nc e obta ine d in the ir hom e a s the fruit of a n e gre gious Fourth Ame ndm e nt viola tion. Se e Lope

z-Rodrigue

z v . Muk ase y , 536 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th C ir. 2008). In a he aring be fore the Im

m igration Judge(“ IJ” ), IC E introduc e d a

c opy of IC E Form

I-392 for e a c h Pe titione r to e s ta blish his or her
a lie na ge . The form s do not sta te Pe titione rs’ pla c e s of birth or im m igration 2sta

tuse s. Pe titione rs a

rgue d tha t the form s should besuppre sse d a s fruit of the ille g a l se a rc h of the i r hom e . The IJ de nie d the m otion to suppre s s on the ground that the gove rnm e nt disc ove re d the doc um e nts from Pe t itione rs’ prior im

m igration proc e e dings using “ ide ntity e vide nc e ” — that is, e vide nc e of who the Pe titione rs
are
— whic h m ay

not be suppre sse d
. Se e Unite d State s v . De l Toro Gudino , 376 F.3d 997, 1001 (9th C ir. 2004). At a subse que nt he a

ring, the IJ sua

sponte took a d

m inistra t ive notic e of Pe titione rs’ e arlie r a sy l um a pplic at ion, in whic h Pe titione rs indic ate d tha t the y are M e x ic an nationa ls. The IJ the n found Pe titione rs re m ova ble . Pe titione rs a

ppe a le d to the B IA a

nd file d a m otion to re m and to theIJ. The B IA dism isse d the a ppe a l
and de nie d the m otion to re m and. Pe titione rs c ha lle nge the B IA’ s de c ision. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ). The IJ did not e rr in re ly ing on doc um e nts from Pe titione rs’ prior im m igration proc e e dings, e ve n if we a ssum e tha t the ra id of Pe titione rs’ hom e wa s
an e g re gious Fourth Ame ndm e nt viola tion a nd tha t IC E would not ha

ve disc ove re d the d oc um e nts re lating to Pe titione rs’ prior im m igration proc e e dings ha d the offic e rs not le arne d Pe titione rs’ ide ntitie s during the ra id. Unde r our c urre nt c irc uit la w, “ the sim

ple fa c t of who a

de fe nda nt is c annot be e xc lude d, re ga rdle ss of the
nature of the viola

tion le a ding to his ide

ntity .” De l

Toro Gudino , 376 F.3d a t 1001. 3Pe titione rs c onte nd tha t the IJ e rre d in sua

sponte ta king a dm inistra

tive notic e of the i r a sy lum

a p plic ation without providing the m notic e and a

n opportunity

to re spond. Eve n a ssum ing e rror, Pe titione rs ha v e not shown pre j udic e . Se e Padilla-Martine z v . Holde r , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th C ir. 2014). To
e sta blish pre judic e , Pe titione rs “ m

ust pre se nt ‘ pla

usible sc e na

rios in whic h the outc om e of the proc e e dings would ha ve be e n diffe re nt’ if a

m ore e la borate proc e ss we re provide d .” Morale

s-Izquie rdo v . Gonzale

s , 486 F.3d 484, 495 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (quoting W

alte rs v . Re no , 145 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th C i r. 1998)). Pe titione rs ha

ve not doneso. Ha d the IJ provide d Pe titione rs with notic e and a n opportunity

to re spond to the doc um e nts, Pe titione rs would not ha ve ha d a pla u sible ba sis for c ha lle nging the doc um e nts’ a uthe ntic ity . Nor c ould Pe titione rs have ke pt the doc um e nts out of the re c ord by c h a lle nging the ir a dm issibility . The gove rning re gula

tions pe rm it the IJ to “ re c e ive in e vide n c e any ora l or writte n sta te m e nt tha

t is m ate ria l a

nd re le va nt to a ny issue in the c a se pre viously m a de by the re sponde nt or a

ny othe r pe rson during a

ny inve stiga tion, e x am ination, he aring, or tria l.” 8 C .F.R
. § 1240.7(a). Furthe r, “ he arsay is a dm issiblein im

m igration proc e e dings.” Rojas-Garc ia v . Ashc roft , 339 F.3d 814, 823 (9th C ir. 2003). Pe titione rs m ove d be fore the IJ to te rm i nate proc e e dings on the ground tha

t the g ove rnm e nt ha d de porte d a m ate ria l witne ss who would ha ve te stifie d in a 4suppre ssion he aring. Pe t itione rs c onte nd tha t the B IA e rre d in fa i ling to a ddre ss the i r argum e nt tha

t the IJ did not rule

on the ir m otion. TheB IA did a ddre ss the
argum e nt, howe ve r, and c orre c tly rule d tha t Pe titione rs’ m o tion wa s m oot be c a use no suppre ssion he aring wa s re quire d. Fina lly , the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pe titione rs’ m otion to re m a nd. Se e Mov

sisian v . Ashc r oft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C i r. 2005). Pe titione rs’ first a

rgum e nt for a

re m a n d wa s ba s e d on the ir c la im s on the m e rits, whic h the B IA prope rly

de nie d. The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in re

je c ting Pe titione rs’ se c ond a

rgum e nt for a

re m and —

tha t the y m ust be a llowe d to se e k im m igration re lie f be fore the IJ — be c a use Pe titione rs’ m otion fa ile d to ide n tify the n ature of the re lie f the y sought. AFFIRM E D.

5