UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1429

THOMAS WANGO GITHINJI,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 12, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tamar Jones, FAYAD LAW, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Ryan Morgan 

Knight, FAYAD LAW, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Lindsay Corliss, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Wango Githinji, a native and citizen of Kenya, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(Board) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s

(IJ) order finding that Githinji filed a frivolous asylum 

application and was ineligible for adjustment of status. We 

deny the petition for review. 

An alien who “has knowingly made a frivolous application 

for asylum,” after having been informed of the consequences of 

submitting such an application, is permanently ineligible for 

immigration benefits, including adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(d)(6) (2012); Niang v. Holder, 762 F.3d 251, 254-55 (2d 

Cir. 2014) (as a consequence of filing frivolous asylum 

application, alien was ineligible for adjustment of status). An 

asylum application is frivolous “if any of its material elements 

is deliberately fabricated.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2015). The 

following requirements must be met before an asylum application 

is declared frivolous: “(1) notice to the alien of the 

consequences of filing a frivolous application; (2) a specific 

finding by the [IJ] or the Board that the alien knowingly filed 

a frivolous application; (3) sufficient evidence in the record 

to support the finding that a material element of the asylum 

application was deliberately fabricated; and (4) an indication 

that the alien has been afforded sufficient opportunity to 
3

account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the 

claim.” In re Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 155 (B.I.A. 2007). 

“Because of the severe consequences that flow from a 

frivolousness finding, the preponderance of the evidence must 

support an [IJ’s] finding that the respondent knowingly and 

deliberately fabricated material elements of the claim.” Id. at 

157. The IJ must provide cogent and convincing reasons for 

finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant 

knowingly and deliberately fabricated material elements of his 

claim. Id. at 158-60. 

A finding that the applicant knowingly filed a false or 

fraudulent submission that was material to the asylum 

application is a finding of fact that this court reviews for 

substantial evidence. See Albu v. Holder, 761 F.3d 817, 821 

(7th Cir. 2014); Aziz v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 854, 857 (8th Cir. 

2007). “[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 

contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). Our review is 

limited to the Board’s order because the Board did not expressly 

adopt the IJ’s opinion. Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 & 

n.1 (4th Cir. 2014). 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding 

that Githinji knowingly and deliberately fabricated a material 

element of his asylum application. Githinji’s fabrication 
4

concerning the length of his detention was closely related to 

the key event underlying his asylum application. See Dankam v. 

Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 122 (4th Cir. 2007) (when arrests are 

key events underlying asylum claim, “it follows that details 

surrounding these arrests and the dates on which they occurred 

are more than minor or trivial details”). Because Githinji 

provided two different versions concerning his detention and how 

he acquired his visa and he was vague and evasive in response to 

evidence that was contrary to his initial version of events, 

substantial evidence supports the finding that his fabrication 

was knowing and deliberate. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED