FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALDEV SINGH MANHANI,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 17-72231

Agency No.

A097-545-859

OPINION

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 22, 2019*

Seattle, Washington

Filed November 25, 2019

Before: Richard R. Clifton and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit

Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff,** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Clifton

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2 MANHANI V. BARR

SUMMARY***

Immigration

The panel denied Baldev Singh Manhani’s petition for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

denying a waiver of deportation under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(1)(H), based on the frivolous asylum application

bar at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6), holding that the bar precludes an

applicant from receiving all benefits under the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

Section 1158(d)(6) states that if the Attorney General

determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous

application for asylum and the alien has received the notice

under paragraph (4)(A), the alien shall be permanently

ineligible for any benefits under this chapter.

Manhani argued that the Immigration Judge’s uncontested

finding that he filed a frivolous asylum application did not

bar him from receiving a waiver under § 1158(d)(6) because

the bar applied to asylum benefits only. The panel disagreed.

In light of the plain language of the Act, this circuit’s

precedent, and that of other circuits, the panel concluded that

the phrase “under this chapter” refers to Chapter 12 of Title 8

of the U.S. Code (the INA), the chapter in which the section

is found. The panel rejected Manhani’s contention that the

phrase applied to only the subchapter or section containing

the frivolous asylum bar. The panel therefore held that, as a

result of the frivolous asylum application finding, Manhani is

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
MANHANI V. BARR 3

barred from receiving all benefits under the INA, including a

waiver of deportation.

COUNSEL

Cornell Kirby, Seattle, Washington, for Petitioner.

Laura Halliday Hickein, Trial Attorney; Shelley R. Goad,

Assistant Director; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,

D.C.; for Respondent.

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

Baldev Singh Manhani petitions for review of the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

denying him a waiver of deportation under the Immigration

and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(1)(H), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(1)(H). Manhani argues that the Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) uncontested finding that he filed a frivolous

asylum application does not bar him from receiving such a

waiver under INA § 208(d)(6), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). We

disagree.

Section 1158(d)(6) states:

If the Attorney General determines that an

alien has knowingly made a frivolous

application for asylum and the alien has

received the notice under paragraph (4)(A),
4 MANHANI V. BARR

the alien shall be permanently ineligible for

any benefits under this chapter, effective as of

the date of a final determination on such

application.

INA § 208(d)(6), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Manhani does not

contest the IJ’s finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous

asylum application. Rather, he contends that filing a frivolous

asylum application renders him ineligible for asylum benefits

only, not all immigration benefits. This case thus raises the

question of the meaning of the phrase “this chapter” in

§ 1158(d)(6). We conclude that “this chapter” refers to

Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the chapter in which

the section is found. Therefore, as a result of the frivolous

asylum application finding, Manhani is barred from receiving

all benefits under the INA, including a waiver of deportation.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

I. Background

Baldev Singh Manhani is a native and citizen of India

who first entered the United States in 1998. In 1999, Manhani

filed an asylum application under a false name, “Sukhdev

Singh,” and a false date of birth. In 2002, Manhani withdrew

this application and was granted voluntary departure by an IJ.

Manhani then entered Canada and filed a Canadian asylum

application under his real name. This application contained

different facts from those listed in the 1999 U.S. application.

The Canadian asylum application was denied in 2003.

In 2004, Manhani again entered the United States and was

stopped by immigration officials. The former Immigration

and Naturalization Service issued him a notice to appear

charging him with removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i),
MANHANI V. BARR 5

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Manhani submitted a second

U.S. asylum application at this time, using his real name, but

omitting any reference to his previous U.S. asylum

application under the name “Sukhdev Singh.” Based on this

second application, Manhani was granted asylum in 2005,

and became a lawful permanent resident in 2008.

In 2013, Manhani provided his legal permanent resident

card to U.S. immigration officials at the Canadian border. At

the time, there was a “lookout” in the computer system noting

that the information for Manhani matched that of “Sukhdev

Singh.” In the sworn interview that followed, Manhani

admitted to submitting the false 1999 asylum application.

DHS then issued a notice to appear charging Manhani with

removal under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). DHS later amended the charge to removal

under INA § 237(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), INA

§ 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), and INA

§ 212(a)(7)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i).

In 2016, the IJ issued a written decision finding that

Manhani filed a frivolous asylum application and holding that

he was thus barred from receiving benefits under the INA. On

appeal, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. The

BIA wrote that Manhani had not meaningfully contested

either his removability or the IJ’s determination that he filed

a frivolous asylum application and held those issues to be

waived. The BIA only addressed the issue of whether the

frivolous asylumapplication finding precluded Manhani from

seeking a § 1227(a)(1)(H) waiver, and concluded that, under

§ 1158(d)(6), Manhani was permanently ineligible for “any

benefit under the Act.” Manhani filed this petition for review

in August 2017.
6 MANHANI V. BARR

II. Discussion

Section 1158(d)(6) states that “[i]f the Attorney General

determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous

application for asylum . . . the alien shall be permanently

ineligible for any benefits under this chapter.” INA

§ 208(d)(6), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Manhani contends that

the phrase “this chapter” in § 1158(d)(6) refers to something

other than Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the chapter

in which the section is found. We are not persuaded by this

argument, as the plain language of the Act, our precedent, and

that of other circuits do not support it.

The provision in question is found in Part I (Selection

System) of Subchapter II (Immigration) of Chapter 12

(Immigration and Nationality) of Title 8 (Aliens and

Nationality) of the U.S. Code. The INA covers all of

Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, running from section

1101 to section 1537. INA, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1537. The

phrase “this chapter” most clearly refers to a chapter level

division, rather than a subchapter or section level one. Thus,

the organization of the Code demonstrates that “this chapter”

refers to all of Chapter 12 and consequently the entirety of the

INA.

This court has consistently interpreted the phrase “this

chapter” in the INA to refer to Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the

U.S. Code. For example, in interpreting 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a)(5), which states “the alien is not eligible and may

not apply for any relief under this chapter,” we noted that

“‘this chapter’ refers to chapter 12 of title 8 of the U.S.

Code.” See Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1072

(9th Cir. 2016). Similarly, in reading 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)

which states “[a]s used in subchapters I and II of this
MANHANI V. BARR 7

chapter,” this court altered the quotation to read “[a]s used in

subchapters I and II of this chapter [i.e., chapter 12].” See

Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir.

2002) (last formatting change in original).

More specifically, we have consistently read the phrase

“this chapter” in § 1158(d)(6) as referring to Chapter 12 of

Title 8 in its entirety. This court has noted that a

“determination that an applicant filed a frivolous asylum

application renders the applicant permanently ineligible for

immigration relief.” Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215, 1217

(9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Likewise, we have previously

upheld a BIA determination that a frivolous asylum

application created a statutory bar against a petitioner

receiving an adjustment of status or a § 212(I) waiver. See

Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2013) (per

curiam). These decisions demonstrate that the phrase “this

chapter” refers to Chapter 12 in its entirety, and that a

frivolous asylum application finding bars a petitioner from

receiving all benefits under the chapter.

Finally, other circuits have also consistently followed this

understanding. Multiple circuits have read the phrase “this

chapter” in other sections of the INA, notably § 1231(a)(5),

to refer to Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. See, e.g.,

Garcia v. Sessions, 856 F.3d 27, 32 (1st Cir. 2017), cert.

denied, 138 S. Ct. 2652 (2018) (replacing the words “this

chapter” in § 1231(a)(5) with “chapter 12 Title 8 of the U.S.

Code”); Cazun v. Atty. Gen. U.S., 856 F.3d 249, 254 (3d Cir.

2017), cert. denied sub nom. Cazun v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct.

2648 (2018) (stating that “this chapter” in § 1231(a)(5)

“refers to Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code”); Mejia v.

Sessions, 866 F.3d 573, 580 (4th Cir. 2017) (replacing the

words “this chapter” in § 1231(a)(5) with “Chapter 12 of Title
8 MANHANI V. BARR

8”). Other circuits have also specifically read the phrase “this

chapter” in § 1158(d)(6) to refer to Chapter 12 in its entirety,

with the result that a frivolous asylum application finding

leads to a bar on all immigration benefits. See, e.g., Liu v.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 455 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[A]

final decision that an asylum application is frivolous

permanently forecloses the petitioner from all benefits under

the immigration laws of this country.”); Muhanna v.

Gonzales, 399 F.3d 582, 588 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that

8 U.S.C. § 1158 (d)(6) renders an alien “‘ineligible for any

benefits’ under the immigration laws”); Scheerer v. U.S. Atty.

Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1317 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating that if an

alien knowingly files a frivolous application the alien is

“permanently ineligible to receive immigration benefits”);

Alexandrov v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 395, 397 n. 1 (6th Cir.

2006) (“A finding of frivolousness is commonly referred to

as the ‘death sentence’ of immigration proceedings.”).

Given the plain language of the Code, our precedent, and

that of other circuits it is clear that the phrase “this chapter,”

as used in § 1158(d)(6), refers to Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the

U.S. Code. Consequently, the IJ’s unchallenged

determination that Manhani filed a frivolous asylum

application rendershim ineligible for all immigration benefits

under Chapter 12. Chapter 12 covers five subchapters,

including Subchapter II (Immigration), which contains

§ 1227(a)(1)(H). Thus, Manhani is ineligible for a waiver of

removal under § 1127(a)(1)(H).

III. Conclusion

The petition for review is denied. Under § 1158(d)(6), a

finding that a petitioner filed a frivolous application makes

that person ineligible for all benefits under Chapter 12 of
MANHANI V. BARR 9

Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The IJ determined that Manhani

filed such an application, and he is therefore barred from

receiving a waiver of deportation.

PETITION DENIED.