NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Samuel Volanos-Vega, No. 22-1012 Petitioner, Agency No. A073-827-032 v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 21, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,*** District Judge. Samuel Volanos-Vega (“Volanos-Vega”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision. The * 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). *** The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. agency found Volanos-Vega’s original asylum application frivolous, his second application time-barred, and found that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. A frivolousness finding must comply with a four-part regulatory framework. “First, an asylum applicant must have notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application. Second, the IJ or Board must make specific findings that the applicant knowingly filed a frivolous application. Third, those findings must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Finally, the applicant must be given sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausibilities in his application.” Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “Whether the IJ properly applied the regulatory framework is a question of law” that we review de novo, while administrative findings of fact “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). Volanos-Vega argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s finding that 1 Where, as here, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision pursuant to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), “we revisit both decisions and treat the IJ’s reasons as those of the BIA.” Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 2 he filed a frivolous asylum application in 1998, because he did not know that an asylum application falsely asserting he was from Guatemala had been prepared on his behalf by his brother. He further contends that he did not receive adequate notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Volanos- Vega received adequate notice. Volanos-Vega’s signature and printed name appear directly below the warnings in his application and the application- preparer signed a declaration attesting that the completed application was read to Volanos-Vega …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals