Helina Mekonnen v. Loretta Lynch, No. 16-1087 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1087 HELINA TEFERRA MEKONNEN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 30, 2016 Decided: September 1, 2016 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zewdu Alem, LAW OFFICE OF ZEWDU ALEM, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Helina Teferra Mekonnen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) judge’s (IJ) dismissing decision her appeal finding that from she the was immigration ineligible for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act because she filed a frivolous asylum application. (2012). See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Insofar as Mekonnen argues that her asylum application is not frivolous because she did not submit false documents or rely upon false facts, we conclude we are without jurisdiction to consider particular this argument. claim before An the alien [Board] “who does fails to not raise exhaust a [her] administrative remedies as to that claim” such that “the federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider it.” Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, 780 F.3d 205, 210 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Ndibu v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 229, 237 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Failure to make the argument that a frivolousness finding was inappropriate on remand deprives us of jurisdiction to consider the claim.”). Because Mekonnen did not raise this particular claim on appeal before the Board, we are without jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, we dismiss that part of the petition for review. 2 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); Ndibu, 823 F.3d at 230 (as a consequence of filing frivolous asylum application, adjustment of status). alien was ineligible An asylum application is frivolous “if any of its material elements is deliberately fabricated.” C.F.R. § 1208.20 material if it (2016). “had for a An alien’s natural misrepresentation tendency to influence 8 is the decisions” of the agency or “tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien’s eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that [s]he” was inadmissible. In re D-R-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 445, 450 (B.I.A. 2011) (alien’s failure to disclose employment as police officer during Bosnian war was a material misrepresentation (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622, 629 (6th Cir. 2015) (“[A] concealment or misrepresentation is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision” of the agency. (internal quotation marks omitted)); Injeti v. USCIS, 737 F.3d 311, 316-17 (4th Cir. 2013) (observing that the Board considers a misrepresentation material if it tends to shut off a relevant line of inquiry). 3 A finding that the asylum applicant knowingly filed a false or fraudulent submission that was material to the application is a finding Albu v. of fact Holder, we 761 review F.3d for 817, substantial 821 (7th Cir. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 854, 857 (8th Cir. 2007). findings of fact are conclusive evidence. 2014); Aziz v. “[A]dministrative unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). See 8 We have considered Mekonnen’s arguments challenging the finding that her omission was not a material misrepresentation and find the arguments to be without merit. We therefore deny in part the petition for review. Accordingly, we petition for review. facts and materials legal before dismiss part and deny in part the We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the in court are adequately and argument presented would not in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
