Halina Nowak v. Jefferson Sessions

15-71187·Judge: Nelson, Tashima, Christen·Attorney: Dori L. Zavala, Esquire, Attorney, Zava-la Law Offices, LLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Petitioner, Yanal H. Yousef, Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorneys, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent0 citations

Opinions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 08 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HALINA NOWAK, No. 15-71187

Petitioner, Agency No. A087-168-107

v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 5, 2018** San Francisco, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Halina Nowak, a native and citizen of Poland, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order of removal. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

* 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). 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by finding that Nowak’s untimely

asylum application was statutorily barred. Nowak failed to demonstrate how the

death of a Polish politician she knew twenty-nine years ago constituted a changed

circumstance that materially affected her eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §

1158(a)(2)(D).

2. The BIA correctly decided that substantial evidence supported the

immigration judge’s (IJ) determination that Nowak was not entitled to withholding

of removal. Nowak did not suffer past persecution: she received only three indirect

threats over a fourteen-year period that did not result in harm, see Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003), and she was able to earn a living

from her business while she was under government investigation, see Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006). Nowak also failed to show that

she would suffer future persecution if she returned to Poland. See

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017). Indeed, the

individuals who contacted Nowak’s sister in Poland neither threatened Nowak nor

mentioned her prior involvement with the deceased politician.

3. The BIA did not consider the validity of Nowak’s second marriage in

making its decision. Thus, Nowak is not entitled to a new hearing based on the IJ’s

2 finding that her second marriage was fraudulent. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754

F.3d 733, 741 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION DENIED.