NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT L-T- M, No. 15-73248 Petitioner, Agency No. A097-365-604 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 4, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: D.W. NELSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,** District Judge. Petitioner L-T-M is a native and citizen of Kenya. She was initially admitted into the United States on a valid F-1 student visa in December 2002. Almost a year later, L-T-M applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), seeking relief based upon membership in a particular social group. She claimed she left Kenya to escape female genital mutilation demanded by her father, who is a village leader of the Mungiki sect, and feared for her safety if she were to return. In support of her asylum application, L-T-M included a letter signed by Charles B. Munuuve (Munuuve letter), dated August 18, 2002. The letter provided that L-T-M had been treated for three months at the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (Moi Hospital) in Eldoret, Kenya for injuries she sustained during her escape. As part of its investigation into her application, an investigator for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Nairobi office faxed a copy of the Munuuve letter to the Moi Hospital for verification and identification. The response to the investigator’s inquiry stated that the hospital had no record that L-T-M had ever been treated there or that Munuuve had ever been employed by the hospital, and therefore the letter was a forgery. Based upon this information, the investigator concluded the Munuuve letter was fraudulent. Following this revelation, the immigration judge (IJ) allowed L-T-M to respond, but she had no explanation for the investigative finding. The IJ denied L-T-M’s application and found she had knowingly submitted a frivolous asylum application because she had submitted a forged medical document. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not consider the merits 2 of L-T-M’s claims but remanded the IJ’s decision to allow L-T-M to present a rebuttal witness with regard to the frivolous finding. After a hearing, the IJ again denied L-T-M’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under CAT, and voluntary departure and found her application for asylum was frivolous. The BIA declined to take administrative notice of documents L-T-M submitted for the first time on appeal, affirmed the IJ’s decision on the merits, and dismissed the appeal. L-T-M timely petitions for review. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, adverse credibility determinations, and conclusions of eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals