Opinion ID: 171391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Finality of Frivolousness Finding

Text: The bar on relief due to the filing of a frivolous asylum application becomes effective as of the date of a final determination on such application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (emphasis added). Mr. Ribas therefore argues that the frivolousness finding was not final at the time he requested a remand for adjustment of status. Mr. Ribas did not seek judicial review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of asylum relief and the finding that his asylum application was frivolous. Thus, the Attorney General argues that the review process was complete, and a final determination was in place, at the time he requested adjustment of status. Mr. Ribas argues, however, that the determination on his application was not final, because he pursued the collateral remedy of a timely motion to reopen, and the BIA's order granting that motion to reopen vacated all prior orders entered in the case. The BIA rejected this argument, giving the following reasons: [Mr. Ribas's motion to reopen] did not request vacatur of the frivolous finding, and our order reopening and remanding this matter did not address the previous frivolous finding. [Mr. Ribas] did not pursue a further appeal of our decision summarily affirming the [IJ's] denial of asylum and the entry of a frivolous finding with regard to that application. Based upon that sequence of events, it now appears that our decision to reopen the matter was in error given the prior finding that the asylum application was frivolous. That finding, of course, renders [Mr. Ribas] ineligible for adjustment despite the fact that his marriage to a United States citizen may be bona fide. Admin. R. at 3. While there is some authority that the grant of a motion to reopen vacates the previous order of deportation or removal and reinstates the previously terminated immigration proceedings, Bronisz v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir.2004), Mr. Ribas fails to cite any authority that this principle should be extended to vacate automatically an unchallenged finding of frivolousness. Moreover, the BIA later in effect rescinded its reopening of the case, calling it an error; rejected Mr. Ribas's contention that its prior order had affected the frivolousness finding; and reinstated the order of removal. Under these circumstances, Mr. Ribas fails to show that there was not a final order finding his application frivolous at the time he applied for adjustment of status.