N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ILONA KING, AKA Ilona Sism ilic h, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-73855 Age n c y No. A075-090-875
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 Fe brua

ry 11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, PAEZ, a nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Ilona King pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls dismissing he r a

ppe a l from

an Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r tha t pre t e rm itte d he r a

p plic ations for a djustm e n t of sta tus a nd a wa ive r of ina d m issibility . The IJ de t e rm i ne d tha t King wa s ina dm issibleunde r 8 U.S.C . §



# FIL ED AUG 19 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 . 36-3.1182(a )(2)(C )(i). 1 W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e , se e Alarc o n-Se rrano v . I.N .S. , 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th C ir. 2000), a nd de ny King’ s pe tition. 1. The a g e nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t the re wa s re a s on to be lie ve tha t King knowingly

c ollude d with he r brothe r in the illic it tra ffic king of m e tha m p he tam ine is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . S

e e 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(2)(C )(i); Alarc o n-Se rrano , 220 F.3d a t 1119. On the

re c ord be fore the IJ, a

re a sona b le
a djudic ator would not be

c om pe lle d to re a c h

a diffe re nt c onc lusion tha

n the
a ge nc y ’ s, give n the ite m s tha t the polic e found in theliving room of the house tha t King indic ate d tha

t she owne d, King’ s pre se nc e in the house whe n the polic e found the i te m s, the living room ’ s loc ation in the house , a nd King, he r brothe r, and he r husba n d’ s sta te m e nts a bout the ite m s to theinve stiga t ing polic e offic e rs. S

e e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); C hav e z-Re y e s v . Holde r , 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th C ir. 2014). Although King’ s pre s e nc e did not c onstitute an a c t of a ssista

n c e , it is undispute d that King provide d a

pla c e in he r house for the m anufa c turing. C f. Rose m ond v
. Unite d State s , 134 S. C t. 1240, 1246 (2014); 21 U.S.C . § 856(a )(1). King doe s not

1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(1) to re vie w the fina l orde r of re m ova l, give n tha

t the a g e nc y

found King re m ova

ble not on theba sis of § 1182(a )(2)(C )(i), but ra

the r a s “ [a ] n a lie n pre se nt in theUnite d State s without be ing a dm i tte d or pa

role d ,” § 1182(a )(6)(A)(i).

2disputetha

t the a c tivity

in he r house c onstitute d

drug tra ffic king unde r § 1182(a )(2)(C )(i). Thus, substa n tia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination. 2. C onsiste nt with our a

na ly sis a bove , substa

ntia l e vide nc e a l so supports the
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion re ga

rding King’ s te stim ony

be fore the IJ tha

t she la c ke d knowle d ge of he r brothe r’ s a c tivity in he r house
. Se e Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1093–94 (9th C ir. 2010)
. M ore ove r, King doe s not c onte s t the IJ’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion re ga

rding he r brothe r’ s te stim ony . PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3