RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0036p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ TAKHIR ASHIROVICH KHAYTEKOV, │ Petitioner, │ > No. 19-3149 │ v. │ │ MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘ On Remand from the United States Supreme Court. Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 094 219 176. Decided and Filed: February 25, 2022 Before: SILER, COLE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: George P. Mann, Maris J. Liss, GEORGE P. MANN AND ASSOCIATES, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Petitioner. Karen L. Melnik, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________ OPINION _________________ MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Often described as an immigration “death sentence,” a finding that an immigrant “knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum” renders the immigrant “permanently ineligible for any benefits under” our immigration laws. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6); see, e.g., Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2015). Yet Congress understandably refused to impose this serious penalty on asylum seekers who file frivolous applications unless they receive adequate notice “of the consequences” of doing so. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4)(A), No. 19-3149 Khaytekov v. Garland Page 2 (d)(6). To fulfill this notice mandate, the government has placed the required warning about filing a frivolous asylum application in the standard application form itself. Takhir Khaytekov received this written warning, but immigration judges also routinely give another verbal warning in court. The judge in Khaytekov’s case did not give this secondary warning, and Khaytekov argues that the failure to do so violated § 1158(d)’s notice requirement. In an earlier opinion, we opted to reject Khaytekov’s claims for relief on narrower grounds that avoided this statutory question. But the Supreme Court has since remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), and we now must confront it. We see nothing in § 1158(d)’s text that requires the additional warning that Khaytekov requests. And we agree with every other circuit court that has considered the issue by concluding that the warning in the application form itself satisfies the statute’s notice requirement. Because Khaytekov does not dispute that he filed a frivolous asylum application, he is permanently barred from obtaining any immigration “benefits.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). So our judgment remains the same after Niz-Chavez: we dismiss Khaytekov’s petition for review in part and deny it in part. I Khaytekov, a citizen of Uzbekistan, came to this country in 2001 on a temporary visa. After he overstayed his visa by many years, the government instituted proceedings to remove him. Khaytekov sought asylum. His asylum application alleged that he had been persecuted “by nationalist[s] and fascist[s]” in Uzbekistan because of his religion, nationality, and political opinion. Admin. R. (A.R.) 1313. It also asserted that Khaytekov feared “physical attacks” if he returned to the country. A.R. 1314. While his removal proceedings were pending, Khaytekov married a U.S. citizen. He thus withdrew his request …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals