S-M-H

Cite as 

 (BIA 2026)                                Interim Decision #4158




                        Matter of S-M-H-, Respondent
                             Decided January 21, 2026
                           U.S. Department of Justice
                    Executive Office for Immigration Review
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

  The written warnings on the respondent’s initial asylum application provided the
respondent with statutorily compliant notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous
application, irrespective of the absence of oral warnings by an Immigration Judge.
Matter of X-M-C-, 

 (BIA 2010), clarified.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Khanh N. Nguyen, Minneapolis, Minnesota
BEFORE: Board Panel: MONTANTE, OWEN, and GALLOW, Appellate Immigration
Judges.
GALLOW, Appellate Immigration Judge:


    In a decision dated April 12, 2022, the Immigration Judge found the
respondent, a native and citizen of Somalia, permanently ineligible for any
benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) because she
knowingly filed a frivolous application for asylum. The respondent appeals
that decision. 1 The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has not
responded to the appeal. We will affirm the Immigration Judge’s
frivolousness finding and dismiss the appeal.

                                I. BACKGROUND
   The record of proceedings indicates that in 1998, the respondent
completed, signed, and filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding
of Removal (Form I-589) with the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service (“INS”), claiming to have just arrived from a refugee camp in Kenya.
On the asylum application, the respondent stated that she was a citizen of
Somalia and did not indicate citizenship from any other countries. The
former INS denied the respondent’s asylum application and placed her in
removal proceedings, charging her with removability under section
237(a)(1)(A) of the INA, 

(a)(1)(A) (Supp. V 1999), as an

1
   The Immigration Judge issued a separate order on April 13, 2022, finding the respondent
removable as charged and ordering her removed to Canada. We deem the respondent’s
appeal to encompass both the April 12, 2022, decision, and the April 13, 2022, removal
order.
                                          Page
                                          412
Cite as 

 (BIA 2026)                        Interim Decision #4158




alien who, at the time of entry, was not in possession of a valid unexpired
immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other
valid entry document. The respondent renewed her request for asylum and
related relief before the Immigration Judge, alleging she and her family
suffered harm in Somalia based on their membership in a minority clan.

    On August 27, 1999, an Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s
applications for asylum and related relief, finding the respondent not credible
based on numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities in the respondent’s
testimony, the weakness of her corroborative evidence, and omissions from
her application. The Immigration Judge surmised that “the respondent may
be hiding facts which are important in assessing the case and which may
show that the respondent is not entitled to the relief in question.” The
respondent appealed the Immigration Judge’s decision and filed a motion to
remand based on her subsequent marriage to a United States citizen. The
Board granted the respondent’s motion and remanded proceedings. On
Aprill 11, 2005, an Immigration Judge granted the respondent’s application
for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the INA, 

(a)
(Supp. V 2005).

    On May 2, 2019, DHS filed a motion to reopen and rescind the
respondent’s lawful permanent resident status based on fraud. Specifically,
DHS alleged that the respondent failed to disclose on her asylum application
that she obtained citizenship in Canada under a different identity in 1998. A
prior Immigration Judge granted DHS’ motion to reopen. On April 12, 2022,
the current Immigration Judge found that the respondent filed a frivolous
asylum application and was therefore ineligible for any benefits under the
INA. The Immigration Judge then issued a removal order to Canada.

                         II. LEGAL STANDARD
     Section 208(d)(6) of the INA, 

(d)(6) (2024), provides that
if the respondent has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and
received notice of the consequences, the respondent shall be permanently
ineligible for any benefits under the INA. “[A]n asylum application is
frivolous if any of its material elements is deliberately fabricated.” 

 (2020). “An element of a claim is ‘fabricated’ when it
misrepresents the truth.” Matter of Y-L-, 

 (BIA 2007).
“A ‘deliberate’ fabrication involves a knowing and intentional
misrepresentation of the truth.” 

 A fabrication “is material if it ‘has a
natural tendency to influence . . . the decision of’ the decisionmaking body
to which it was addressed.” Matter of B-Y-, 

(BIA 2010) (citation omitted).
                                     Page
                                     413
Cite as 

 (BIA 2026)                                Interim Decision #4158




    A finding that an asylum application is frivolous requires “(1) notice to
the alien of the consequences of filing a frivolous application; (2) a specific
finding by the Immigration Judge or the Board that the alien knowingly filed
a frivolous application; (3) sufficient evidence in the record to support the
finding that a material element of the asylum application was deliberately
fabricated; and (4) an indication that the alien has been afforded sufficient
opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the
claim.” Matter of Y-L-, 

. An “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.” 

.

                                   III. ANALYSIS
    We affirm the Immigration Judge’s determination that the respondent
filed a frivolous application. On December 14, 2018, the respondent averred
that she became a citizen of Canada in May 1998 under a different name.
She did not disclose this information on her asylum application. The
respondent does not challenge the Immigration Judge’s findings that she
deliberately fabricated a material element of her asylum claim and had a
sufficient opportunity to explain the discrepancies and implausibilities in her
claim. Those issues are therefore waived on appeal. See Matter of P-B-B-,

, 44 n.1 (BIA 2020) (stating that arguments not raised on
appeal are deemed waived).

    The INA requires that at the time of filing an application for asylum, an
applicant be advised of the consequences of knowingly filing a frivolous
application. INA § 208(d)(4), 

(d)(4). On appeal, the
respondent contends that she was not given sufficient notice of the
consequences of filing a frivolous application because the presiding
Immigration Judge in 1999 did not provide the warning either orally or in
writing. We agree with the Immigration Judge that the written warning on
the respondent’s initial asylum application filed with the former INS
provided the respondent with statutorily compliant notice at the time of filing
of the consequences of filing a frivolous application. Specifically, the
Form I-589 application she submitted had a warning in Part E of the
application that states, “Applicants determined to have knowingly made a
frivolous application for asylum will be permanently ineligible for any
benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” 2 It is undisputed that
the respondent signed Part E of the application, acknowledging the
consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application. The respondent is

2
    The current version of Form I-589 has the same warning in Part D of the application.
                                           Page
                                           414
Cite as 

 (BIA 2026)                       Interim Decision #4158




presumed to be familiar with the contents of the application she signed.

(c)(2) (2025); see also Matter of A.J. Valdez and Z. Valdez,

 (BIA 2018).

    The INA does not require that the frivolousness warning be given by an
Immigration Judge, nor does it prescribe the manner in which it must be
given. See INA § 208(d)(4), (6), 

(d)(4), (6). While the
United States Court of the Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in which
jurisdiction this case arises, has not addressed this issue, this position has
been widely accepted by other circuit courts.

   For example, the Sixth Circuit recently held in Khaytekov v. Garland,

, 758–60 (6th Cir. 2022), that the written warning on the alien’s
asylum application satisfies the statutory notice requirement and that
“[n]othing in [section 208(d)(6) of the INA] requires immigration judges to
give verbal notice on top of the application’s written notice.” Likewise,
multiple other circuits have held that written warnings on the asylum
application are sufficient statutory notice, concluding that the INA does not
require that the warnings be given by an Immigration Judge. See Ndibu v.
Lynch, 

, 234–35 (4th Cir. 2016); Niang v. Holder, 

 (2d Cir. 2014); Ruga v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 

, 1196–97
(11th Cir. 2014); Pavlov v. Holder, 

 (7th Cir. 2012);
Cheema v. Holder, 

, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2012); Ribas v.
Mukasey, 

, 929–30 (10th Cir. 2008).

    Under the respondent’s line of reasoning, an alien who seeks asylum
outside of the context of removal proceedings could never be subject to the
consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application. The regulation
governing notice for asylum applications filed before United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services is identical to the regulation governing
notice for asylum applications filed before the Immigration Judge. Compare

 (2020), with 

. Both regulations require
notice that comports with section 208(d)(4) of the INA, 

(d)(4). Because the statute requires notice be provided “[a]t the time
of filing,” INA § 208(d)(4), 

(d)(4), if the statute were
interpreted to require oral notice by an Immigration Judge, then the
frivolousness bar would not apply to applications, like the respondent’s, not
originally filed with the Immigration Judge. See Niang, 

(“The warning on the asylum application form itself, therefore, is the only
means under the current regulatory scheme by which notice may be given at
the time of filing, regardless of the manner of filing.”).


                                     Page
                                     415
Cite as 

 (BIA 2026)                        Interim Decision #4158




    We recognized that in Matter of X-M-C-, 

(BIA 2010), we noted that “the warnings provided on asylum applications
and verbally given by Immigration Judges” gave aliens proper notice of the
consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application. To the extent this
could be interpreted to suggest that oral warnings are required, as discussed
above, the language of the statute does not require oral warnings given by
the Immigration Judge and no circuit court has concluded otherwise. Thus,
we now clarify that the warning language in the asylum application
constitutes clear notice of the consequences for filing a frivolous asylum
application and complies with the notice obligation under the INA.

    The respondent also argues that a frivolousness finding is erroneous
because she withdrew her asylum application. However, “a respondent’s
withdrawal of an asylum application does not preclude the Immigration
Judge or Board from making a frivolous determination.” Matter of M-S-B-,

 (BIA 2016). To the extent Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N
Dec. at 327, suggests that an application withdrawn prior to oral warnings
precludes a frivolousness finding, we now clarify that the warnings included
in the asylum application satisfy the statutory notice obligations, and
therefore an applicant cannot seek to avoid the consequences of filing a
frivolous application by later withdrawing it, regardless of whether the
Immigration Judge provided a frivolousness warning.

    Moreover, we agree with the Immigration Judge that DHS did not waive
the frivolousness argument by failing to raise the issue previously. “There is
no statute of limitations with respect to making a determination of
frivolousness . . . .” Matter X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. at 325 n. 3. The fact that
DHS was not aware of the frivolousness of the respondent’s asylum
application at the time it was adjudicated by the Immigration Judge does not
prevent the Immigration Judge from later determining that the respondent
filed a frivolous application and does not relieve her of the consequences tied
to such filing. Because the respondent knowingly filed a frivolous asylum
application despite having received proper notice of the consequences of
filing a frivolous application, she is permanently ineligible for any benefits
under the INA. INA § 208(d)(6), 

(d)(6).

    Lastly, we discern no error in the Immigration Judge’s designation of
Canada as the country of removal. See INA § 241(b)(2), 

(b)(2) (2024) (discussing countries to which aliens may be removed).
The respondent does not dispute that she acquired citizenship in Canada. She
also, through then-counsel, admitted the allegations in the 1999 notice to
appear, conceded removability, and declined to designate a country of
removal. DHS later designated Canada based on the respondent’s admission
                                     Page
                                     416
Cite as 

 (BIA 2026)                                Interim Decision #4158




to Canadian citizenship. Thus, the Immigration Judge properly ordered her
removed to Canada. See INA § 241(b)(2)(D), 

(b)(2)(D).

    While the respondent argues on appeal that she sought to challenge the
allegations and charge in the 1999 notice to appear, the Immigration Judge
advised the respondent to do so by filing a motion to terminate, which she
never did. Thus, the issue of removability is not properly before us. See
Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 

 (BIA 2018) (stating that
the Board “generally will not consider an argument or claim that could have
been, but was not, advanced before the Immigration Judge”), aff’d sub nom.
Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 

 (5th Cir. 2019). As the respondent
has not sought protection from Canada and is not eligible for any benefits
under the INA, we affirm the Immigration Judge’s decision ordering her
removed. 3

                              IV.     CONCLUSION
    The written warnings on the respondent’s initial asylum application
provided the respondent with statutorily compliant notice of the
consequences of filing a frivolous application, irrespective of the absence of
oral warnings by an Immigration Judge. The withdrawal of an asylum
application does not preclude a frivolousness determination and there is no
statute of limitations with respect to making a frivolousness determination.
Because the respondent knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application
despite having received proper notice of the consequences of filing a
frivolous application, she is permanently ineligible for any benefits under the
INA.

    ORDER: The respondent’s appeal is dismissed.
    NOTICE: If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any
action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary
penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. See INA
§ 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024); 

(b)(14) (2025). Further,

3
   The respondent makes no arguments that she has retained her lawful permanent resident
status. See 

(p) (noting that lawful permanent resident status “terminates
upon entry of a final administrative order of exclusion, deportation, or removal.”).
                                          Page
                                          417
Cite as 

 (BIA 2026)                      Interim Decision #4158




any respondent that has been denied admission to, removed from, or has
departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or
removal is outstanding and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any
time found in the United States shall be fined or imprisoned not more than
two years, or both. See INA § 276(a), 

(a) (2024).




                                     Page
                                     418