NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONG KHUN, No. 14-71237
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-192-389
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Hong Khun, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for adjustment of
status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The agency’s determination
*
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).
that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum is reviewed de
novo for compliance with the procedural framework set forth by the BIA,
Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing the procedural
safeguards set forth in Matter of Y- L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (BIA 2007)), and we
review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, see id. at 995. We
deny the petition for review.
The agency found that Khun was barred from adjustment of status because
she filed a frivolous asylum application. Contrary to Khun’s contentions, the
record supports the agency’s finding that Khun was adequately notified of the
consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application based on the notice printed
on the asylum application that she signed, and her testimony about the written and
oral warnings she received at her asylum interview. See Cheema v. Holder, 693
F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2012). We reject Khun’s contention that the agency
erred in finding that she filed a frivolous asylum application where she only sought
to proceed with her application for adjustment of status. See Kulakchyan, 730 F.3d
at 996 (“the only action required to trigger a frivolousness inquiry is the filing of
an asylum application”) (internal citation omitted); see Chen v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d
935, 943 (9th Cir. 2008) (“withdrawal of an asylum application does not obviate
the need for an IJ to determine whether a false application should be deemed
frivolous”). Because Khun filed a frivolous asylum application, the agency
2 14-71237
properly found her ineligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-71237