Amit Mehra v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMIT MEHRA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72199
Agency No. A097-866-386
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Amit Mehra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for adjustment of
status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The agency’s determination
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72199
that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum is reviewed de
novo for compliance with the procedural framework set forth by the BIA.
Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995, 995 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing the
procedural safeguards set forth in Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (BIA 2007)).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, see id., and we
review de novo due process claims, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th
Cir. 2010).
Considering the Matter of Y-L- safeguards, the agency found that Mehra
filed a frivolous asylum application and denied his application for adjustment of
status. Mehra does not argue the agency failed to make a specific finding that he
filed a frivolous application or did not afford him a sufficient opportunity to
account for discrepancies or implausible aspects of his claim. Contrary to
Mehra’s contentions, he received adequate notice of the consequences of filing a
frivolous asylum application, see Cheema v. Holder, 693 F.3d 1045, 1049, 1049 n.
4 (9th Cir. 2012), and the record contains sufficient evidence that he deliberately
fabricated a material element of his asylum application, see Fernandes v. Holder,
619 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the agency’s finding that the
application was fraudulent was supported by a preponderance of the evidence).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72199
We reject Mehra’s contention that the agency should not have made a
frivolousness finding because he had withdrawn his application. See Kulakchyan,
730 F.3d at 996. We reject Mehra’s contention that the agency violated his due
process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, we uphold the agency’s finding of
frivolousness. Because Mehra filed a frivolous asylum application, the agency
properly found him ineligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --