ILONA KING, AKA Ilona Sismilich v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ILONA KING, AKA Ilona Sismilich,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73855
Agency No. A075-090-875
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Ilona King petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order that
pretermitted her applications for adjustment of status and a waiver of
inadmissibility. The IJ determined that King was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §
FILED
AUG 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

1182(a)(2)(C)(i).1 We review for substantial evidence, see Alarcon-Serrano v.
I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000), and deny King’s petition.
1. The agency’s determination that there was reason to believe that King
knowingly colluded with her brother in the illicit trafficking of methamphetamine
is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i);
Alarcon-Serrano, 220 F.3d at 1119. On the record before the IJ, a reasonable
adjudicator would not be compelled to reach a different conclusion than the
agency’s, given the items that the police found in the living room of the house that
King indicated that she owned, King’s presence in the house when the police found
the items, the living room’s location in the house, and King, her brother, and her
husband’s statements about the items to the investigating police officers. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chavez-Reyes v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 2014).
Although King’s presence did not constitute an act of assistance, it is undisputed
that King provided a place in her house for the manufacturing. Cf. Rosemond v.
United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240, 1246 (2014); 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). King does not
1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review the final order
of removal, given that the agency found King removable not on the basis of §
1182(a)(2)(C)(i), but rather as “[a]n alien present in the United States without
being admitted or paroled,” § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

dispute that the activity in her house constituted drug trafficking under §
1182(a)(2)(C)(i). Thus, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination.
2. Consistent with our analysis above, substantial evidence also supports the
adverse credibility determination regarding King’s testimony before the IJ that she
lacked knowledge of her brother’s activity in her house. See Tamang v. Holder,
598 F.3d 1083, 1093–94 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, King does not contest the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination regarding her brother’s testimony.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --