NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAKOB CHILINGARYAN, AKA Hakob No. 17-71726
Arshalouysi Chilingaryan,
Agency No. A075-758-457
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
HAKOB CHILINGARYAN, AKA Edgar No. 18-70227
Babaian,
Agency No. A075-758-457
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 3, 2020**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, MURGUIA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Hakob Chilingaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (the “Board’s”) May 15, 2017 ruling that he
filed a frivolous asylum application and the Board’s January 17, 2018 order
denying his motion to reopen and remand. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and review de novo questions of law. Kulakchyan v.
Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2013). Where, as here, the Board cites Matter
of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and provides its own review of the
evidence and the law, we review both the Immigration Judge’s (the “IJ’s”) and the
Board’s decision. See Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2011). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petitions.
1. Chilingaryan conceded that he knowingly filed a false claim for
asylum, and substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Chilingaryan received adequate notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous
application and thus knowingly filed a frivolous application for asylum. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4)(A), (6). The record shows that in April 2006 Chilingaryan
signed his asylum application directly beneath a warning which advises that
“[a]pplicants determined to have knowingly made a frivolous application for
asylum will be permanently ineligible for any benefits under the Immigration and
2
Nationality Act”; the preparer of Chilingaryan’s application certified that the
application was read to Chilingaryan in “his . . . native language or a language he
. . . understands”; at his November 2009 asylum interview, Chilingaryan signed the
“Record of Applicant and Interpreter Oaths During an Interview,” swearing that he
was advised of the consequences of filing a frivolous application by his interview
interpreter; his interview interpreter signed the same document certifying that he
was qualified to act as an interpreter, had read the document to Chilingaryan, and
that Chilingaryan stated he understood him; and at his May 2016 removal hearing
Chilingaryan admitted both that he signed the “Record of Applicant” document
and that he did not inform his interpreter that he misunderstood the document’s
translation. See Kulakchyan, 730 F.3d at 995; Cheema v. Holder, 693 F.3d 1045,
1049–50 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that the written warning on the asylum
application adequately notifies the applicant of the consequences of filing a
frivolous application). The Board and the IJ did not err in crediting the
declarations of two different interpreters stating that they translated the written
warnings for Chilingaryan over Chilingaryan’s uncorroborated testimony that they
did not, given his admission that he sought asylum using a false
identity. Kulakchyan, 730 F.3d at 995; see also Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826,
835–37 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the agency may weigh conflicting evidence
even when there is no adverse credibility finding).
3
2. The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Chilingaryan’s
motion to reopen. Even assuming his former counsel was deficient, Chilingaryan
cannot demonstrate prejudice. As noted above, Chilingaryan had notice of the
consequences of filing a frivolous application and the agency’s determination that
it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his 2006 asylum application did not affect the
materiality of his misrepresentations. An application may be found frivolous even
when it has become moot. See, e.g., Kulakchyan, 730 F.3d at 996 (“We therefore
join several of our sister circuits in holding that . . . a frivolousness finding [may
be] based on a withdrawn application.”). Furthermore, because Chilingaryan
knowingly filed a frivolous application for asylum and substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that he received adequate notice of the
consequences of doing so, he is ineligible for adjustment of status.
PETITIONS DENIED.
4