Case Name: Natalia AVILA-SALVATIERRA; Wilder Leonel Dubon Avila, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-18
Citations: 33 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 01-70350; I & NS Nos. A71-632-239, A71-632-230
Parties: Natalia AVILA-SALVATIERRA; Wilder Leonel Dubon Avila, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
Natalia AVILA-SALVATIERRA; Wilder Leonel Dubon Avila, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 01-70350.
I & NS Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 5, 2002.
Decided April 18, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioners, Natalia Avila Salvatierra and her son, Wilder Leonel Dubon-Avila, have failed to establish that they suffered past persecuted or maintained a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an imputed political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision denying asylum on account of imputed political opinion, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
The stop-time rule applies to aliens, such as Petitioners, who were detained before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA") but seek suspension of deportation. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001). When the Order to Show Cause issued in 1991, the Petitioners had not continuously resided in the United States for seven years as the statute requires. Thus, they are ineligible for suspension of deportation based on IIRIRA's stop-time rule.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.