Court Opinion

ID: 9958959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 15:00:38.629601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:16.122784
License: Public Domain

21-6315
     Bah v. Garland
                                                                                     BIA
                                                                              Laforest, IJ
                                                                             A098 396 981

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                 SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.

 1         At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
 3   Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of April, two thousand
 4   twenty-four.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7                    DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
 8                          Chief Judge,
 9                    ROBERT D. SACK,
10                    BETH ROBINSON,
11                    Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   ABDOURAHMANE BAH,
15          Petitioner,
16
17                    v.                                           21-6315
18                                                                 NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21              Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                       Abdourahmane Bah, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
1    FOR RESPONDENT:                     Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
2                                        Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
3                                        Director; Joseph A. O’Connell, Attorney,
4                                        Office of Immigration Litigation, United
5                                        States Department of Justice, Washington,
6                                        D.C.

 7         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

 8   Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

 9   DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED.

10         Petitioner Abdourahmane Bah, a citizen of Guinea, seeks review of a May 7,

11   2021, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen and affirming a June 20,

12   2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum

13   and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).

14   In re Abdourahmane Bah, No. A098 396 981 (B.I.A. May 7, 2021), aff’g No. A098 396

15   981 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. June 20, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with

16   the underlying facts and procedural history.

17         Where, as here, “the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and merely

18   supplements the IJ’s decision,” we review the IJ’s decision “as supplemented by

19   the BIA.” Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). In doing so, we

20   review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and

21   application of law to fact de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
                                              2
1    Cir. 2009).   “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

2    reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

3    8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

4          Here, the agency denied Bah asylum and withholding of removal after

5    finding that Bah had knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application in 2004. If a

6    noncitizen knowingly files a frivolous application for asylum and has received

7    notice of the consequences of doing so, he is permanently ineligible for most

8    immigration benefits, with the exception of withholding of removal under the INA

9    and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6); 8 C.F.R.

10   § 1208.20; * see also Mei Juan Zheng v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 176, 178 (2d Cir. 2008) (“A

11   person who makes an application for asylum determined to be ‘frivolous,’ or

12   deliberately and materially false, is subject to a grave penalty: permanent

13   ineligibility for most forms of relief under the immigration laws.”).             Before

14   subjecting an alien to “this permanent bar,” the following requirements must be

15   met: “(1) notice to the alien of the consequences of filing a frivolous application;

16   (2) a specific finding by the [IJ] or the [BIA] that the alien knowingly filed a

     *Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect at the time of Bah’s
     application.
                                              3
 1   frivolous application; (3) sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding

 2   that a material element of the asylum application was deliberately fabricated; and

 3   (4) an indication that the alien has been afforded sufficient opportunity to account

 4   for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim.” Mei Juan Zheng, 514

5    F.3d at 180 (citations omitted). The first of these requirements—pertaining to

6    notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application—is at issue on appeal.

7          In Niang v. Holder, we held that the written warning provided in the asylum

8    application form is generally sufficient notice of the consequences of filing a

 9   frivolous application.   762 F.3d 251, 254–55 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Ud Din v.

10   Garland, 72 F.4th 411, 414 (2d Cir. 2023) (“In general, an alien’s signature on an

11   asylum application form warning of the consequences of filing a frivolous

12   application gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of adequate notice.”); 8 C.F.R.

13   § 1208.3(c)(2) (“The applicant’s signature establishes a presumption that the

14   applicant is aware of the contents of the application.”). However, we have also

15   held that “[f]urther inquiry” into the notice requirement is necessary “if an alien

16   plausibly claims and presents credible evidence that he was unable to understand

17   the printed Frivolousness Warning on his signed asylum application.” Ud Din,

18   72 F.4th at 428.    If the alien makes such a showing, “the presumption of

                                              4
 1   understanding established by his signature may not be determinative of notice.”

 2   Id.

 3         Here, as in Ud Din, the agency may have “misread our decision in Niang to

 4   warrant finding notice based simply on [Bah’s] signature[] on [his application],

 5   without need to consider the claim that [he] had not received translations of—and

 6   so did not understand—anything in those forms,” particularly the warning

 7   pertaining to the consequences of filing a frivolous application.          Id. at 429.

 8   Alternatively, the agency may have “found the . . . Frivolousness Warning to have

 9   been to read to [Bah] so that [he] did understand it,” id., and thus declined to credit

10   Bah’s testimony that he lacked such an understanding. In these circumstances,

11   we “cannot confidently” determine whether the agency declined to credit Bah’s

12   testimony insofar as he claimed lack of notice or misinterpreted Niang to create an

13   irrebuttable presumption of understanding based solely on Bah’s signature on his

14   application form.

15         Accordingly, we remand for the agency to determine whether Bah had

16   notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application. In addition, although

17   Bah does not challenge the denial of withholding of removal in his pro se brief, the

18   agency on remand is not precluded from revisiting its erroneous determination

                                               5
1   that the finding of frivolousness barred withholding of removal.       See 8 C.F.R.

2   § 1208.20 (“[A] finding that an alien filed a frivolous asylum application shall not

3   preclude the alien from seeking withholding of removal.”).

4         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s

5   decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. All

6   pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

7                                         FOR THE COURT:
8                                         Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
9                                         Clerk of Court

                                             6