Thomas Githinji v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-500-676. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999727335]. [15-1429]
Appeal: 15-1429
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/30/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1429
THOMAS WANGO GITHINJI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
November 12, 2015
Decided:
December 30, 2015
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tamar Jones, FAYAD LAW, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Ryan Morgan
Knight, FAYAD LAW, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Lindsay Corliss, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1429
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/30/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Thomas
petitions
Wango
for
Githinji,
review
of
a
native
the
Board
and
of
citizen
of
Immigration
Kenya,
Appeals’
(Board) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
(IJ)
order
finding
that
Githinji
filed
a
frivolous
asylum
application and was ineligible for adjustment of status.
We
deny the petition for review.
An alien who “has knowingly made a frivolous application
for asylum,” after having been informed of the consequences of
submitting such an application, is permanently ineligible for
immigration benefits, including adjustment of status.
8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(d)(6) (2012); Niang v. Holder, 762 F.3d 251, 254-55 (2d
Cir.
2014)
(as
a
consequence
of
filing
frivolous
asylum
application, alien was ineligible for adjustment of status).
An
asylum application is frivolous “if any of its material elements
is deliberately fabricated.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2015).
The
following requirements must be met before an asylum application
is
declared
frivolous:
“(1)
notice
to
the
alien
of
the
consequences of filing a frivolous application; (2) a specific
finding by the [IJ] or the Board that the alien knowingly filed
a frivolous application; (3) sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that a material element of the asylum
application was deliberately fabricated; and (4) an indication
that
the
alien
has
been
afforded
2
sufficient
opportunity
to
Appeal: 15-1429
Doc: 23
account
for
claim.”
Filed: 12/30/2015
any
discrepancies
Pg: 3 of 4
or
implausible
aspects
of
the
In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 155 (B.I.A. 2007).
“Because
of
the
severe
consequences
that
flow
from
a
frivolousness finding, the preponderance of the evidence must
support
an
[IJ’s]
finding
that
the
respondent
knowingly
deliberately fabricated material elements of the claim.”
157.
and
Id. at
The IJ must provide cogent and convincing reasons for
finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant
knowingly and deliberately fabricated material elements of his
claim.
Id. at 158-60.
A finding that the applicant knowingly filed a false or
fraudulent
submission
that
was
material
to
the
asylum
application is a finding of fact that this court reviews for
substantial evidence.
See Albu v. Holder, 761 F.3d 817, 821
(7th Cir. 2014); Aziz v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 854, 857 (8th Cir.
2007).
“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.”
8
U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012).
Our
review
is
limited to the Board’s order because the Board did not expressly
adopt the IJ’s opinion.
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 &
n.1 (4th Cir. 2014).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Githinji knowingly and deliberately fabricated a material
element
of
his
asylum
application.
3
Githinji’s
fabrication
Appeal: 15-1429
Doc: 23
Filed: 12/30/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
concerning the length of his detention was closely related to
the key event underlying his asylum application.
See Dankam v.
Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 122 (4th Cir. 2007) (when arrests are
key events underlying asylum claim, “it follows that details
surrounding these arrests and the dates on which they occurred
are
more
than
minor
or
trivial
details”).
Because
Githinji
provided two different versions concerning his detention and how
he acquired his visa and he was vague and evasive in response to
evidence that was contrary to his initial version of events,
substantial evidence supports the finding that his fabrication
was knowing and deliberate.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?