N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT DH A NDAYUT H APANI T H ANG AV E L ,

Pe t i tione r, v. L O RE T T A E . L YNCH , Attor ne y G e ne r al, R e sponde nt. No. 13-74446 Age n c y No. A099-910-276 M E M O RANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 13, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI , B YB E E and N.R. SM IT H , C irc uit Judge s . 1. The a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Shre stha

v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C i r. 2010). 

# FIL ED DEC 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).pa ge 2

Tha nga ve l knowingly

inc l ude d in his origina

l de c la ra tion a n inc ide nt tha

t didn’ t a c tua lly ha p pe n . Se e Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [I] nte ntiona l de c e ption towa rd the im m i gration a

uthoritie s is c u lpa

ble c onduc t and one of se ve ra l indic ations of dishone sty that c a sts doubt on the a pplic a n t’ s e ntire s tory .” (c ita

tion, inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd squa re bra c ke ts om itte d)). Tha nga ve l bla m e s the m isre pre se ntation on the unsc rupulous a c tions of his im m igration c onsulta

nt. B ut Tha

nga ve l te stifie d he kne w that the de c la ra tion c onta ine d fa lse inform ation whe n he swore to its a c c ura c y be fore the a sy l um offic e r. Although he

re c ante d the m isre pre se ntation a

t the se c ond m e rits he aring be fore the Im

m igration Judge(IJ), it wa s too la te . Tha nga ve l’ s de libe ra te m isre pre se ntation a

n d othe r inc onsiste nc ie s in his te stim ony , do not c om pe l us to re ve rse the a g e nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. 2. B e c a use the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination inde

pe nde ntly supports the de nia l of Tha

nga ve l’ s pe tition for a sy lum , we do not re a c h the a ge nc y ’ s a lte rnative holding tha

t Tha n gave l fa ile d to e sta

blish a n obje c tive ly

we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a t 1048 n.6. 3. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w Tha n gave l ’ s withholding of re m ova l a nd C onve ntion Aga inst Torturec la im s be c a use he fa ile d to c ha l le nge the m to thepa ge 3

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA). Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); B arron v. Ashc roft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2004). 4. The a ge n c y

did not e rr in finding tha t Tha nga ve l file d a frivolous a sy lum a pplic ation be c a

u se it c om

plie d with the proc e dura l fra m e work a dopte d in Ahir v. M uka s e y , 527 F.3d 912, 917 (9th C ir. 2008). Tha nga ve l wa s suffic i e ntly

notifie d of the c onse q

ue nc e s of filing a

frivolous a

pplic ation by

the writte n wa

rning on his a sy lum a pplic ation. Se e C he e m a

v. Holde r, 693 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th C ir. 2012). And the IJ’ s spe c ific finding tha t Tha nga ve l ha d knowingly

subm itte d a

frivolous a pplic ation wa s supporte d by a pre ponde ranc e of the e v ide nc e and prope rly a ffirm e d by

the B IA. Ahir, 527 F.3d a t 918. Whe n que stione d a

bout them a de -up inc ide nt in his de c la ra tion, Tha

nga ve l e xpla ine d tha

t he inc l ude d it be c a

use his im

m i gration c onsulta

n t ha d a ssure d him

it wa s just be ing “ c ite d a s a n e xam ple ” and wouldn’ t c a

use a proble m . The brie f that Tha nga ve l file d a fte r the c onc lusion of te stim o ny a fforde d him furthe r opportunity to a d dre ss his misre p re se ntation. Se e Kula kc hy an v. Holde r, 730 F.3d 993, 996 (9th C ir. 2013). Tha

t the IJ c onside re d a

nd re je c te d Tha

nga ve l ’ s e xpla

nation doe sn’ t m e a

n he wa s de prive d of a

n a de quate opportunity

to e xpla in his re a s ons forpa ge 4

filing a pa rtia lly fa lse a

pplic at ion. Se e id. For this re a son, Tha nga ve l’ s due proc e s s a rgum e nt a lso fa ils. None the le ss, Tha

nga ve l a rgue s tha t the m isre pre se ntation c annot be the ba sis of a frivolousne ss finding be c a use it wa sn’ t m ate ria l a

nd be c a u se he subm itte d a

ne w de c la

ra t ion be fore the m e rits he aring. B oth a rgum e nts fa i l. The fa bric ate d story

involve d a

pe rson who wa s kille d by the R a stry a

Swana c vak Sanga m p arty de spite fle e i ng to a diffe re n t pa rt of India and, the re fore , dire c tly a ddre s se d whe t

he r Tha nga ve l ha d de m onstra

te d a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(2)–(3). M ore ove r, the subm ission of a ne w de c la ra tion is irre le v ant be c a

use e ve n a

withdra wn a pplic ation m ay

support a frivolousne ss finding. Kula kc hy an, 730 F.3d a

t 996. In a

ny c a se , whe n he subm itte d a

ne w de c la

ra t ion, he didn’ t re tra c t his fa l se de c la ra tion; here c ante d the m isre pre se ntation in his origina l de c la ra tion only

a fte r the gove rnm e nt re m inde d him a bout pe rjury at t

he se c ond m e rits he aring. 5. The B IA didn’ t a

buse its disc re tion by de ny ing Tha n gave l ’ s m otion to re m and. Se e Oc am

po v. Holde r, 629 F.3d 923, 925 (9th C ir. 2010). Thene wly nota riz e d c opie s of the pre viously

subm itte d

e vide n c e we re ne ithe r m ate ria l nor ne w. Se e 8 C . F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1).pa ge 5

DE NIE D .