Matter of M-S-B-

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室

Board of Immigration Appeals (1) An untimely application for asylum may be found frivolous under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012). Luciana v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 502 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2007), distinguished. Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA 2010), followed. (2) The respondent’s asylum application is frivolous because he deliberately made a false statement postdating by more than 2 years his date of entry into this country, which is a material element in determining his eligibility to seek asylum given the general requirement to file the application within 1 year of the date of arrival in the United States. FOR RESPONDENT: Elizabeth C. Surin, Esquire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania BEFORE: Board Panel: COLE, PAULEY, and WENDTLAND, Board Members. PAULEY, Board Member:

移民上诉委员会 (1) 根据《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条，8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012)，不及时的庇护申请可以被认定为轻率。Luciana v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 502 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2007)，予以区分。Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA 2010)，遵循。 (2) 被申请人的庇护申请是轻率的，因为他故意作出虚假陈述，将其入境美国的日期推后了2年以上，鉴于一般要求在抵达美国之日起1年内提交申请，这是确定其寻求庇护资格的一个实质性要素。 被申请人代表：Elizabeth C. Surin, Esquire, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 审理：委员会合议庭：COLE、PAULEY 和 WENDTLAND，委员会成员。 PAULEY，委员会成员：

In a decision dated June 2, 2014, an Immigration Judge found the respondent removable on his own admissions under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2012), as a nonimmigrant who remained in the United States longer than permitted. The Immigration Judge also determined that the respondent had knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum under section 208(d)(6) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012), denied his application for adjustment of status in conjunction with a request for waivers of inadmissibility, and ordered him removed from the United States. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed.

在2014年6月2日的决定中，移民法官根据《移民与国籍法》第237(a)(1)(B)条，8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2012)，基于被申请人自己的承认，认定其作为非移民在美国停留超过许可期限而可被驱逐。移民法官还认定，被申请人根据该法第208(d)(6)条，8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012)，明知而提出了轻率的庇护申请，驳回了其与不可入境豁免请求相结合的调整身份申请，并命令将其驱逐出美国。被申请人对该决定提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实和程序历史

The respondent is a native and citizen of Guinea who arrived in the United States on November 22, 1997, as a nonimmigrant visitor. In 2000, he filed an application for asylum in which he falsely stated that he arrived in the United States in December 1999, rather than in 1997, and that he was a Mauritanian slave. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) denied the application for failure to provide sufficiently credible

被申请人是几内亚本土公民，于1997年11月22日作为非移民访客抵达美国。2000年，他提交了一份庇护申请，其中虚假陈述他于1999年12月而非1997年抵达美国，并且他是毛里塔尼亚奴隶。前移民和归化局（“INS”）因未能提供足够可信的

872

872

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

evidence of timeliness and subsequently initiated removal proceedings. The respondent was ordered removed in absentia on October 10, 2002. His motion to rescind the removal order was granted on January 24, 2012.

及时性证据而驳回了申请，随后启动了驱逐程序。被申请人于2002年10月10日被缺席命令驱逐。其撤销驱逐令的动议于2012年1月24日获准。

The respondent withdrew his asylum application before the Immigration Judge and sought adjustment of status in conjunction with waivers of inadmissibility. The Immigration Judge found that the respondent had deliberately fabricated his entry date in his asylum application, which the respondent does not now dispute, and determined that he knowingly made a frivolous application. Citing Luciana v. Attorney General of the United States, 502 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2007), a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arises, the respondent argued that his asylum application could not be found to be frivolous because it was filed out of time and no exceptions to the filing deadline applied, so any fabricated elements would not be “material” to his claim. The Immigration Judge disagreed and concluded that the respondent was barred by section 208(d)(6) of the Act from applying for adjustment of status and the waivers he sought.

被申请人在移民法官面前撤回了其庇护申请，并寻求与不可入境豁免相结合的调整身份。移民法官认定被申请人在其庇护申请中故意伪造了入境日期，被申请人现在对此不持异议，并认定其明知而提出了轻率申请。被申请人援引美国第三巡回上诉法院（本案所属管辖区）的判决 Luciana v. Attorney General of the United States, 502 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2007)，主张其庇护申请不能被认定为轻率，因为该申请逾期提交且不适用提交截止日期的例外情况，因此任何伪造要素对其主张都不具有“实质性”。移民法官不同意，并得出结论认为，根据该法第208(d)(6)条，被申请人被禁止申请调整身份及其寻求的豁免。

The respondent argues on appeal that the Immigration Judge erred in making a finding that his asylum application was frivolous under section 208(d)(6) of the Act in light of the Third Circuit’s decision in Luciana.

被申请人在上诉中主张，鉴于第三巡回法院在 Luciana 案中的判决，移民法官根据该法第208(d)(6)条认定其庇护申请为轻率是错误的。

II. ISSUE

II. 问题

The question before us is whether an application for asylum that was untimely filed can be found frivolous under section 208(d)(6) of the Act.

我们面前的问题是，根据该法第208(d)(6)条，不及时提交的庇护申请是否可以认定为轻率。

III. LEGAL BACKGROUND

III. 法律背景

Section 208(d)(6) of the Act provides as follows:

该法第208(d)(6)条规定如下：

If the Attorney General determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and the alien has received the notice under paragraph (4)(A), the alien shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits under this chapter, effective as of the date of a final determination on such application. We first interpreted the section 208(d)(6) bar to relief in Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151, 153–63 (BIA 2007), where we outlined a four-part framework for deciding whether an alien’s application for asylum is frivolous. First, the respondent must receive the notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application for asylum required by section 208(d)(4)(A) of the Act. Second, the Immigration Judge or the Board must make a specific finding that the respondent knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application. Third, there must be adequate evidence in the record to

如果司法部长认定外国人明知而提出了轻率的庇护申请，且该外国人已收到第(4)(A)段规定的通知，则该外国人应永久无资格获得本章下的任何福利，自对该申请作出最终裁定之日起生效。 我们首次在 Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151, 153–63 (BIA 2007) 中解释了第208(d)(6)条对救济的禁止，其中我们概述了一个四部分框架来决定外国人的庇护申请是否轻率。首先，被申请人必须收到该法第208(d)(4)(A)条要求的关于提交轻率庇护申请后果的通知。其次，移民法官或委员会必须作出具体认定，即被申请人明知而提交了轻率的庇护申请。第三，记录中必须有充分证据

873

873

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

support the finding that a material element of the asylum application has been deliberately fabricated. Specifically, “the Immigration Judge must provide cogent and convincing reasons for finding by a preponderance of the evidence that an asylum applicant knowingly and deliberately fabricated material elements of the claim.” Id. at 158; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2016) (providing that an asylum application is frivolous if any of its “material elements” has been fabricated). Finally, there must be an indication that the respondent has been afforded sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim.

支持认定庇护申请的实质性要素已被故意伪造。具体而言，“移民法官必须提供令人信服的理由，以优势证据认定庇护申请人明知且故意伪造了主张的实质性要素。”Id. at 158；另见 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2016)（规定如果庇护申请的任何“实质性要素”被伪造，则该申请为轻率）。最后，必须表明被申请人有充分机会解释主张中的任何差异或不合情理之处。

We clarified that decision in Matter of B-Y-, 25 I&N Dec. 236, 240 (BIA 2010), where we noted that an Immigration Judge need not “separate and repeat those aspects of the credibility determination that overlap with the frivolousness determination” but may incorporate by reference factual findings made in support of an adverse credibility determination. We recognized, however, that unlike an adverse credibility determination, a frivolousness determination “requires explicit findings as to ‘materiality’ and ‘deliberate fabrication,’” so an Immigration Judge must assess an alien’s explanations for inconsistencies or discrepancies separately. Id.

我们在 Matter of B-Y-, 25 I&N Dec. 236, 240 (BIA 2010) 中澄清了该决定，其中我们指出移民法官不必“分离并重复那些与轻率认定重叠的可信度认定的方面”，而是可以通过引用并入支持不利可信度认定的事实认定。然而，我们认识到，与不利可信度认定不同，轻率认定“需要对‘实质性’和‘故意伪造’作出明确认定”，因此移民法官必须单独评估外国人对不一致或差异的解释。Id.

In Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322, 324−25 (BIA 2010), we held that a frivolousness finding may even be made where no final decision has been issued on the merits of the underlying asylum application because “the only action required to trigger a frivolousness inquiry is the filing of an asylum application.” Moreover, where the required frivolousness warnings were provided and the safeguards under Matter of Y-L- have been followed, a respondent’s withdrawal of an asylum application does not preclude an Immigration Judge or the Board from making a frivolousness determination. Id. at 325−26.

在 Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322, 324−25 (BIA 2010) 中，我们裁定，即使尚未对 underlying 庇护申请的实质作出最终决定，也可以作出轻率认定，因为“触发轻率调查所需的唯一行动是提交庇护申请”。此外，在提供了所需的轻率警告并遵循了 Matter of Y-L- 下的保障措施的情况下，被申请人撤回庇护申请并不妨碍移民法官或委员会作出轻率认定。Id. at 325−26。

IV. ANALYSIS In making his frivolousness finding, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent received sufficient notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application, as required by Matter of Y-L-. The Immigration Judge observed that the respondent not only received the warnings on the Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (Form I-589) but also signed a declaration of oath at his asylum interview that included the consequences of a frivolous application for asylum. The declaration of oath further indicates that the respondent was informed through an interpreter of the consequences of filing a frivolous application. The respondent does not contest that he received the requisite notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application, as contemplated by section

IV. 分析 在作出轻率认定时，移民法官认定被申请人收到了关于提交轻率庇护申请后果的充分通知，符合 Matter of Y-L- 的要求。移民法官观察到，被申请人不仅在庇护和禁止驱逐申请（Form I-589）上收到了警告，而且在其庇护面谈时签署了一份宣誓声明，其中包括轻率庇护申请的后果。宣誓声明进一步表明，被申请人通过翻译被告知提交轻率申请的后果。被申请人不争辩其收到了该法第

874

874

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

208(d)(4)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(1)(iii) (2016), and we therefore do not address that matter any further.

208(d)(4)(A)条和 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(1)(iii) (2016) 所设想的关于提交轻率申请后果的必要通知，因此我们不再进一步处理该事项。

The Immigration Judge also determined that the respondent knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application. In particular, he found that the respondent was not credible when he testified he was unaware that his asylum application contained false statements regarding his entry date and that he had been a Mauritanian slave. The Immigration Judge considered the respondent’s lack of credible testimony in conjunction with documentary evidence in the record indicating that the respondent proceeded with an asylum interview in his native language of Fulani. The respondent does not challenge the Immigration Judge’s finding that he knowingly made these misrepresentations in his asylum application.

移民法官还认定被申请人明知而提交了轻率的庇护申请。特别是，他认定被申请人作证称不知道其庇护申请包含关于入境日期和曾是毛里塔尼亚奴隶的虚假陈述时不可信。移民法官结合记录中表明被申请人以其母语富拉尼语进行庇护面谈的文件证据，考虑了被申请人缺乏可信证词的情况。被申请人不质疑移民法官关于其在庇护申请中明知而作出这些虚假陈述的认定。

Finally, the Immigration Judge determined that a material element of the respondent’s asylum application had been deliberately fabricated because he misrepresented the date of his entry into the United States. To that end, the Immigration Judge found that the falsified date on the respondent’s application was directly material to whether he satisfied the 1-year filing deadline under section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Act and therefore whether he had met the threshold requirement for seeking asylum. The Immigration Judge distinguished the Third Circuit’s decision in Luciana, observing that the respondent’s misrepresentation was material to whether his asylum application was time barred, whereas the misrepresentation of the petitioner in Luciana was irrelevant to the timeliness of her application.

最后，移民法官认定被申请人庇护申请的实质性要素已被故意伪造，因为他虚假陈述了入境美国的日期。为此，移民法官认定被申请人申请上的伪造日期直接关系到其是否满足该法第208(a)(2)(B)条规定的1年提交截止日期，因此关系到其是否满足寻求庇护的门槛要求。移民法官区分了第三巡回法院在 Luciana 案中的判决，指出被申请人的虚假陈述对其庇护申请是否因时效而受阻具有实质性，而 Luciana 案中申请人的虚假陈述与其申请的及时性无关。

But for the frivolousness bar in section 208(d)(6) of the Act, the Immigration Judge would have granted the respondent’s application for adjustment of status based on his determination that the respondent is otherwise eligible for that relief. However, in light of our disposition of this case, we need not reach the Immigration Judge’s alternate analysis in this regard.

如果不是该法第208(d)(6)条的轻率禁止，移民法官本会基于其认定被申请人 otherwise 有资格获得该救济而批准其调整身份申请。然而，鉴于我们对本案的处理，我们无需涉及移民法官在这方面的替代分析。

A. Luciana

A. Luciana

Although the respondent challenges the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that he misrepresented a material element of his application, he does not otherwise dispute the Immigration Judge’s determination that he filed a frivolous asylum application under the pertinent regulatory framework. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20; see also Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. at 155. Therefore, we need only address whether the Immigration Judge properly concluded that the respondent’s misrepresentation of his date of entry in his asylum application is “material.”

尽管被申请人质疑移民法官关于其虚假陈述申请实质性要素的结论，但他不 otherwise 争辩移民法官根据相关监管框架认定其提交了轻率庇护申请的决定。见 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20；另见 Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. at 155。因此，我们只需处理移民法官是否正确认定被申请人在其庇护申请中虚假陈述入境日期是“实质性”的。

The respondent asserts that, in light of the Third Circuit’s decision in Luciana, no time-barred asylum application is subject to the frivolousness

被申请人主张，鉴于第三巡回法院在 Luciana 案中的判决，任何因时效而受阻的庇护申请都不受轻率

875

875

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

bar in section 208(d)(6) of the Act. He contends that Luciana stands for the proposition that if an asylum application is untimely and no qualifying exception to the filing deadline applies, any misrepresentation in the application is immaterial because the merits are never reached. Therefore, according to the respondent, the Immigration Judge erred in making a frivolousness determination in his case because his asylum application was untimely and no exceptions to the filing deadline applied. We disagree.

《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条规定的禁止。他主张，Luciana案确立的原则是：如果庇护申请不及时且没有适用的截止日期例外，申请中的任何虚假陈述都是不重要的，因为永远不会触及案情实质。因此，据答辩人称，移民法官在其案件中作出轻率性裁定是错误的，因为他的庇护申请不及时且没有适用的截止日期例外。我们不同意。

In Luciana, the Third Circuit reversed our determination that an alien had filed a frivolous asylum application in which she misrepresented the facts underlying her claim of past persecution, concluding that her false statement was not material because the application was time barred. The court stated in dicta that it was “far from clear” whether Immigration Judges have authority to issue a frivolousness determination in the context of a time-barred asylum application, but it declined to reach that issue. Luciana, 502 F.3d at 280. We are not persuaded by the respondent’s argument that the Third Circuit’s decision prevents an Immigration Judge from making a frivolousness finding in every circumstance involving a time-barred asylum application.

在Luciana案中，第三巡回法院推翻了我们的裁定，即一名外国人提交了轻率的庇护申请，其中她虚假陈述了其过去迫害主张所依据的事实，结论是她的虚假陈述不重要，因为申请已超过时效。法院在附带意见中表示，“远不清楚”移民法官是否有权在超过时效的庇护申请中作出轻率性裁定，但拒绝触及该问题。Luciana, 502 F.3d at 280。我们未被答辩人的论点所说服，即第三巡回法院的判决阻止移民法官在所有涉及超过时效的庇护申请的情况下作出轻率性认定。

The alien in Luciana made a misrepresentation that went solely to the merits of her asylum application—namely, the facts underlying her claim of past persecution. Her false statement, unlike the respondent’s, did not go to the timeliness of her asylum application. The Third Circuit reasoned that once it was clear that the alien’s application was untimely, her misrepresentation regarding the merits of her application “was of no consequence, no matter how persuasive or compelling it might have been.” Id. Therefore, the court concluded that because the statement “was totally incapable of influencing the decision-makers,” it was not material. Id.

Luciana案中的外国人作出的虚假陈述仅涉及她的庇护申请的案情实质——即她过去迫害主张所依据的事实。与答辩人的虚假陈述不同，她的虚假陈述不涉及她的庇护申请的及时性。第三巡回法院的理由是，一旦明确该外国人的申请不及时，她关于申请案情实质的虚假陈述“无关紧要，无论它多么有说服力或令人信服。”Id. 因此，法院得出结论，由于该陈述“完全不能影响决策者”，因此不重要。Id.

We agree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent’s case is distinguishable from Luciana because the misrepresentation of his date of entry concerns a threshold question regarding his eligibility to seek asylum.1 Specifically, the respondent stated that his entry date was more than 2 years later than his actual entry date, which was some 3 years before he sought asylum. This misrepresentation could have influenced the former INS’s decision on whether his application for asylum was timely under the general requirement that he file the application within 1 year of the date of arrival in the United States, which, in this case, was dispositive of his

我们同意移民法官的观点，即答辩人的案件与Luciana案不同，因为关于其入境日期的虚假陈述涉及关于其寻求庇护资格的阈值问题。1 具体而言，答辩人声称其入境日期比实际入境日期晚了2年以上，而实际入境日期是在他寻求庇护前约3年。这一虚假陈述可能影响了前移民归化局关于他的庇护申请是否及时的决定，根据一般要求，他必须在抵达美国之日起1年内提交申请，在本案中，这对他的

1 As previously noted, the Immigration Judge based his frivolousness finding solely on the respondent’s deliberate misrepresentation of his entry date and not on the fabrication that he was a Mauritanian slave, which goes to the merits of his claim for asylum. The Immigration Judge recognized that, under Luciana, the latter fabrication may not be “material” to the respondent’s application.

1 如前所述，移民法官仅基于答辩人故意虚假陈述其入境日期而作出轻率性认定，而非基于他编造自己是毛里塔尼亚奴隶的谎言，后者涉及他的庇护申请的案情实质。移民法官认识到，根据Luciana案，后一编造可能对答辩人的申请不“重要”。

876

876

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

eligibility for such relief. See section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). Thus, the Immigration Judge properly found the respondent’s misrepresentation to be material because it was “capable of influencing” the decision-maker regarding his eligibility to seek asylum. Luciana, 502 F.3d at 280 (quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)); see also Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. at 159.

此类救济的资格具有决定性。见《移民与国籍法》第208(a)(2)(B)条；8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016)。因此，移民法官正确地认定答辩人的虚假陈述是重要的，因为它“能够影响”决策者关于其寻求庇护资格的决定。Luciana, 502 F.3d at 280（引用Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)）；另见Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. at 159。

We find support for our conclusion that Luciana is distinguishable in Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2008). In that case, the Ninth Circuit rejected the alien’s reliance on Luciana, noting that the misrepresentation regarding his date of entry “went to the very question of whether his application was time-barred in the first instance.” Id. at 1217 n.2; see also Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995–96 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Kalilu and concluding that a misrepresentation in an asylum application about the date of entry is material).

我们在Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2008)中找到了支持我们结论的依据，即Luciana案是可区分的。在该案中，第九巡回法院拒绝了该外国人对Luciana案的依赖，指出关于其入境日期的虚假陈述“直接涉及他的申请是否首先超过时效的问题。”Id. at 1217 n.2；另见Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995–96 (9th Cir. 2013)（引用Kalilu案并得出结论，庇护申请中关于入境日期的虚假陈述是重要的）。

Because Luciana involved different circumstances, it does not preclude a determination that an untimely application for asylum may be found frivolous under section 208(d)(6) of the Act. We hold that, absent contrary controlling authority, a time-barred asylum application may be determined to be frivolous where it contains a deliberate misrepresentation regarding the applicant’s date of entry that is material to the threshold question of the applicant’s eligibility to seek asylum. A contrary holding is not required by the Third Circuit’s decision in Luciana. We therefore reject the respondent’s contention that the Immigration Judge’s determination of frivolousness was improper solely because his asylum application was time barred.

由于Luciana案涉及不同的情况，它并不排除根据《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条认定不及时的庇护申请可能被认定为轻率的。我们裁定，在没有相反的控制性权威的情况下，如果超过时效的庇护申请包含关于申请人入境日期的故意虚假陈述，且该陈述对申请人寻求庇护资格的阈值问题具有重要性，则可以认定该申请为轻率。第三巡回法院在Luciana案中的判决并不要求相反的裁定。因此，我们驳回答辩人的主张，即移民法官的轻率性裁定仅因他的庇护申请超过时效而不当。

B. Matter of X-M-C-

B. Matter of X-M-C-

The Third Circuit’s decision in Luciana is not controlling in this case. However, to the extent it holds that any deliberate fabrication relating to the merits in a time-barred asylum application is immaterial for purposes of the section 208(d)(6) frivolousness bar, we recognize that it is inconsistent with our decision in Matter of X-M-C-. Luciana, 502 F.3d at 280.

第三巡回法院在Luciana案中的判决在本案中不具有控制性。然而，就其裁定在超过时效的庇护申请中任何与案情实质相关的故意编造对于第208(d)(6)条轻率性禁止而言都是不重要的而言，我们认识到这与我们在Matter of X-M-C-案中的裁定不一致。Luciana, 502 F.3d at 280。

As we held in Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. at 324, the materiality of a fabricated element of an asylum application is determined at the time the application is filed. Because the inquiry whether an asylum application is frivolous is triggered once it is “made” or “filed,” a frivolousness finding can be issued in the absence of a final decision on the merits. Id.; see also Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases and observing that “the Board and the courts almost uniformly permit an [Immigration Judge] to make a frivolousness finding as long as the [Immigration Judge] finds that the misrepresentations were material to the

正如我们在Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. at 324中裁定的，庇护申请中编造要素的重要性在申请提交时确定。因为一旦庇护申请被“作出”或“提交”，关于申请是否轻率的调查即被触发，因此可以在没有对案情实质作出最终决定的情况下作出轻率性认定。Id.；另见Yousif v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir. 2015)（收集案例并指出“委员会和法院几乎一致允许[移民法官]作出轻率性认定，只要[移民法官]认定虚假陈述在申请提交时对

877

877

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

application when the application was filed, even if the application was later mooted for some other reason”). Therefore, an applicant who has deliberately fabricated a potentially dispositive element of an asylum application may be subject to the frivolousness bar in section 208(d)(6) of the Act even where he or she is ineligible for, or statutorily barred from, asylum on another ground.

申请具有重要性，即使申请后来因其他原因被搁置”）。因此，故意编造庇护申请中可能具有决定性要素的申请人，即使他或她因另一理由不符合庇护资格或依法被禁止获得庇护，也可能受到《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条轻率性禁止的约束。

In Ghazali v. Holder, 585 F.3d 289, 291–94 (6th Cir. 2009), the Sixth Circuit held that Immigration Judges have authority to issue frivolousness findings in connection with asylum applications that are time barred. Notably, the court determined that an Immigration Judge has jurisdiction over the merits of an asylum application once it is filed and that the time bar provision in section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Act does not expressly preclude an Immigration Judge from either ruling on the merits of the application or finding that it is untimely and alternatively ruling on its merits.2

在Ghazali v. Holder, 585 F.3d 289, 291–94 (6th Cir. 2009)中，第六巡回法院裁定，移民法官有权对超过时效的庇护申请作出轻率性认定。值得注意的是，法院认定，一旦庇护申请提交，移民法官即对申请的案情实质具有管辖权，且《移民与国籍法》第208(a)(2)(B)条中的时效条款并未明确禁止移民法官要么对申请的案情实质作出裁定，要么认定其不及时并替代性地对案情实质作出裁定。2

Further, the court reasoned that a frivolousness finding need only relate to an element that was material when the asylum application was “made.” Id. at 292−93 (quoting section 208(d)(6) of the Act). Thus, because an Immigration Judge can deny an asylum application on the merits without ever reaching the issue of timeliness, an Immigration Judge may likewise issue a frivolousness finding without regard to whether the underlying asylum application is time barred.

此外，法院的理由是，轻率性认定只需涉及在庇护申请“作出”时具有重要性的要素。Id. at 292−93（引用《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条）。因此，由于移民法官可以在不触及及时性问题的情况下基于案情实质驳回庇护申请，移民法官同样可以不顾相关庇护申请是否超过时效而作出轻率性认定。

The Sixth Circuit also rejected the Third Circuit’s holding in Luciana that deliberate fabrications relating to the merits of an asylum application are immaterial once the application is determined to be time barred. Id. at 294. The court noted that under the Third Circuit’s reasoning, once an Immigration Judge decides that an asylum application is untimely, any insufficiency in the alien’s application related to the merits of the claim that supports the denial of relief would also be deemed immaterial, whether it is related to the underlying frivolousness finding or not. Instead, the Sixth Circuit concluded, Immigration Judges should be allowed to deny an asylum application on alternative merits-related grounds without relinquishing the authority to make a frivolousness finding.

第六巡回法院还拒绝了第三巡回法院在Luciana案中的裁定，即一旦庇护申请被认定超过时效，与申请案情实质相关的故意编造即不重要。Id. at 294。法院指出，根据第三巡回法院的理由，一旦移民法官认定庇护申请不及时，外国人申请中与支持驳回救济的案情实质相关的任何不足也将被视为不重要，无论是否与 underlying 轻率性认定相关。相反，第六巡回法院得出结论，应允许移民法官基于替代性的案情相关理由驳回庇护申请，而不放弃作出轻率性认定的权力。

Based on the reasoning in Ghazali, we are persuaded that neither the materiality requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 nor the time-bar

基于Ghazali案的理由，我们确信，8 C.F.R. § 1208.20规定的重要性要求以及《移民与国籍法》第208(a)(2)(B)条规定的时效

2 The Sixth Circuit noted that “treat[ing] the time bar as jurisdictional seems particularly odd” given that Immigration Judges clearly have jurisdiction over the merits of an alien’s application for withholding of removal, regardless of whether the asylum application is timely filed. Ghazali, 585 F.3d at 292. We agree, because the merits of a withholding of removal application are intertwined with those of a concurrently filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b) (2016) (“An asylum application shall be deemed to constitute at the same time an application for withholding of removal . . . .”).

2 第六巡回法院指出，“将时效视为管辖权似乎特别奇怪”，因为移民法官显然对外国人 withholding of removal 申请的案情实质具有管辖权，无论庇护申请是否及时提交。Ghazali, 585 F.3d at 292。我们同意，因为 withholding of removal 申请的案情实质与同时提交的庇护申请的案情实质相互交织。见8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b) (2016)（“庇护申请应被视为同时构成 withholding of removal 申请……”）。

878

878

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) Interim Decision #3880

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 2016) 临时决定 #3880

provision under section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Act precludes an Immigration Judge from making a frivolousness finding in cases involving time-barred applications for asylum, including cases in which the fabrications relate to the merits. See also Mingkid v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 468 F.3d 763, 768 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding “nothing, jurisdictional or otherwise, that divests an [I]mmigration [J]udge of the authority to enter a ruling of frivolousness on an application for asylum that was found to be untimely”); cf. Kulakchyan, 730 F.3d at 995–96 (observing that an alien’s misrepresentation in an asylum application regarding the date of entry is material where it goes to the question whether the application was time barred); Ignatova v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1209, 1214 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming a frivolousness finding made with respect to a time-barred asylum application).3 We will therefore continue to follow our precedent decision in Matter of X-M-C- and decline to follow the Third Circuit’s contrary holding in Luciana outside of that circuit.

《移民与国籍法》第208(a)(2)(B)条的规定阻止移民法官在涉及超过时效的庇护申请的案件中作出轻率性认定，包括虚构内容涉及实体问题的案件。另见Mingkid v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 468 F.3d 763, 768 (11th Cir. 2006)（认定“没有任何事项，无论是管辖权性质的还是其他性质的，剥夺了[移民法官]对一项被认定不及时的庇护申请作出轻率性裁定的权力”）；参见Kulakchyan, 730 F.3d at 995–96（指出外国人在庇护申请中关于入境日期的虚假陈述具有实质性，因为该陈述涉及申请是否超过时效的问题）；Ignatova v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1209, 1214 (8th Cir. 2005)（维持针对超过时效的庇护申请所作的轻率性认定）。3 因此，我们将继续遵循我们在Matter of X-M-C-中的先例裁决，并在第三巡回法院辖区之外拒绝遵循第三巡回法院在Luciana案中的相反裁决。

Because we are not persuaded that there are any legal or clear factual errors in the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent’s asylum application was frivolous, we will affirm his conclusion that the respondent is barred from relief by section 208(d)(6) of the Act.

因为我们未被说服移民法官关于答辩人的庇护申请是轻率的认定存在任何法律或明显事实错误，我们将维持其结论，即答辩人因《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条而被禁止获得救济。

V. CONCLUSION

V. 结论

We conclude that the Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent’s asylum application is frivolous since he deliberately made a false statement postdating by more than 2 years his date of entry into this country, which is a material element in determining his eligibility to seek asylum given the general requirement to file the application within 1 year of the date of arrival in the United States. The respondent is therefore barred from relief from removal under section 208(d)(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal will be dismissed.

我们认定，移民法官正确判定被申请人的庇护申请属轻率申请，因为其故意作出虚假陈述，将入境日期后推超过2年，而鉴于一般要求在抵达美国之日起1年内提交申请，该日期是判定其寻求庇护资格的关键要素。因此，根据《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条，被申请人被禁止获得免于遣返的救济。据此，被申请人的上诉将被驳回。

3 No sources of regulatory or legislative history that meaningfully address the interplay between the frivolousness bar in section 208(d)(6) of the Act and the asylum time-bar provision in section 208(a)(2)(B) have been identified by the courts of appeals, and we are unaware of any.

3 各联邦上诉法院均未查明有任何监管或立法史料对《移民与国籍法》第208(d)(6)条中的轻率申请禁止与第208(a)(2)(B)条中的庇护时限条款之间的相互关系作出有意义的阐述，我们亦不知悉存在此类史料。

879

879