Henny Laut v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENNY LAUT,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73438
Agency No. A097-185-760
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014 **
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON, District
Judge.***
Henny Laut (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Indonesia, appeals the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) entering a finding of
FILED
JUL 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Kent J. Dawson, Senior U.S. District Court Judge for
the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

frivolousness as to Petitioner’s asylum application, and the BIA’s affirmation of
the Immigration Judge’s denial of withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We also grant the motion to
supplement the record.
Petitioner’s accounts of targeted violence and temple-burning were material
elements of her asylum application under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20. See, e.g., Khadka v.
Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner knowingly and intentionally
misrepresented these accounts in her asylum application and interview. Such
deliberate fabrication is all that is necessary to establish the scienter requisite for a
finding of frivolousness. Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 156 (BIA 2007).
The BIA properly reviewed de novo the application of the framework set forth in
Matter of Y-L-. See id. at 158-59; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). However, the result
for Petitioner is unchanged even if the BIA had reviewed a question of fact,
requiring application of the “clear error” standard. See Gallegos-Vasquez v.
Holder, 636 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2011); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). Lastly,
Petitioner cannot demonstrate that it is “more likely than not that [s]he would be
subject to [future] persecution.” Al-Harbi v. I.N.S., 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.
2001). Accordingly, the BIA properly denied withholding of removal.
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --