Vahanyan v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AREGINA VAHANYAN, et al., Nos. 21-590, 22-1043 Petitioners, Agency No. A075-621-602 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 6, 2023 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, TALLMAN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Aregina Vahanyan and her son, Armen Vahanyan, (collectively, “the Vahanyans”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal. The Vahanyans are natives of the former Soviet Union. Aregina claims statelessness, and Armen is a citizen of Armenia. In 2004, an * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 21-590, 22-1043 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) revoked Aregina and Armen’s asylum status after they admitted lead petitioner Aregina had submitted a fraudulent asylum application in 1998. The BIA subsequently adopted and affirmed the IJ’s finding of a frivolous asylum bar and denied the Vahanyans’ motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel and subsequent motion to reconsider. Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). The Vahanyans now petition for review, alleging the BIA erred in 1) finding that Aregina knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application, subjecting her to the frivolous asylum bar; 2) dismissing their due process claims; and 3) denying their ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petitions. 1. The BIA did not err in concluding that lead petitioner Aregina Vahanyan had knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application, barring her from the benefits of asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 2008). There is no dispute that Aregina’s second asylum application was fraudulent. Aregina argues, however, that the IJ’s frivolousness finding was improper because her 1995 application lacked a written warning as to the consequences for filing a fraudulent application, and the warning in her 1998 application was not read to her in her native language before signing. Simply put, she asserts the frivolous filing bar should not apply to her because she did not understand the consequences of lying to the United States Government to obtain immigration benefits. 2 21-590, 22-1043 We review the BIA’s denial of asylum for substantial evidence. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Aregina knowingly submitted a fraudulent asylum application. Aregina signed her 1998 application, which contained a bold-font warning informing her of the frivolous asylum bar, using her fraudulent name. The 1998 application lists a preparer from an immigration rights center, states that a translator was present, and was signed before an asylum officer attesting that Aregina ratified the truth of her application and confirmed her understanding of the document in his …

Original document ES
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals