Mariusz Sudnikowski v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

70 F.3d 1280 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Mariusz SUDNIKOWSKI, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 94-70685. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 17, 1995. * Decided Dec. 1, 1995. Before: WRIGHT, FERNANDEZ and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge erred in his understanding of various factual details. We need not decide whether the IJ erred. The Board of Immigration Appeals reviewed the IJ's decision de novo, so we review the BIA's decision, not the IJ's. Rodriguez-Rivera v. INS, 848 F.2d 998, 1002 (9th Cir.1988); Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.1993). 3 Petitioner next argues that the BIA decided his case without sufficient individualization, on the basis of administrative notice that Polish refugees had nothing more to fear from the Communists since Solidarity gained power. We do not read the BIA decision as mere reliance on the…