NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAKOB CHILINGARYAN, AKA Hakob Arshalouysi Chilingaryan,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 71726

Agency No. A075

- 758

- 457

MEMORANDUM *

HAKOB CHILINGARYAN, AKA Edgar Babaian,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70227

Agency No. A075

- 758

- 457

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). 

# FILED

APR 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, MURGUIA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Hakob Chilingaryan , a native and c itizen of Armenia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ s ( the “Board ’s ”) May 15 , 20 17 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 o f 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 pet ition s

.

1. Chilingaryan conceded that h e 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 applicatio n 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 f rivolous application for

asylum will be permanently ineligible for any benefits under the Immigration and3

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 Oath s 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 (9t h 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 , 75 3 F.3d 826,

835

– 37 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the agency may weigh conflicting evidence

even when there is no adverse credibility finding).4

2. The Board did not abuse its discretion by den ying Chilingaryan’s

motion to reopen. Even a ssuming his former counsel was deficient, Chilingaryan

cannot demonstrate prejudice. As noted above, Chilingaryan had notice of the

consequences of filing a frivolous application and t he agency’s determination that

it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate hi s 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 f rivolousness finding [may

be] based on a withdrawn application.”). Furthermore, because Chilingaryan

knowingly filed a frivolous application for asylum a nd substantial evidence

supports the agency ’ s determination that he received adequate notice of the

co nsequences of doing so , he is ineligible for adjustment of status.

PETITIONS DENIED.