Case Name: Halina NOWAK, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-08
Citations: 710 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 15-71187
Parties: Halina NOWAK, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
Halina NOWAK, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71187
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 5, 2018
Filed February 08, 2018
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 Respondent
Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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.
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 finding that her second marriage was fraudulent. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 741 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.