Mohammad Hannan v. Jefferson Sessions , 690 F. App'x 976 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 11 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD ABDUL HANNAN, AKA Nos. 13-74094
Noor Basher, 14-70419
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-514-510
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 9, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE, CHRISTEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The Board of Immigration Appeals correctly determined that Mohammad
Abdul Hannan is subject to removal for seeking to procure an immigration benefit
*
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).
Page 2 of 3
by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Hannan willfully
filed an application for asylum under a false name and identity, and that the
misrepresentations he made were material. A willful misrepresentation is one that
is “deliberate and voluntary.” Forbes v. INS, 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1995). In
making his false application, Hannan provided a photograph and a declaration,
signed a document in which he agreed to testify truthfully, and completed an
asylum interview under his assumed identity. These acts were deliberate and
voluntary. A material misrepresentation is one that has “a natural tendency to
influence” the decisions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Id.(quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 772 (1988)). The
misrepresentations in Hannan’s application spoke directly to his credibility, and
thus had a tendency to influence DHS’ decisions. Furthermore, there is no
evidence to support Hannan’s arguments that he timely recanted his application
and that the Immigration Judge was biased. Because Hannan’s misrepresentations
were both willful and material, Hannan is subject to removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
Page 3 of 3
Hannan’s contention that he did not know enough English to understand that
he was making a false application is unpersuasive. By the time he submitted the
application, Hannan had: lived in the United States for a decade; obtained a
driver’s license; worked in the food service industry; filed taxes; and owned and
operated several businesses. There is no evidence that he used a language other
than English in these activities.
Hannan’s reliance on Urooj v. Holder, 734 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2013), is
misplaced. In that case, we held that impeachment evidence alone could not satisfy
DHS’ burden of proof in an asylum termination case. Id. at 1078–79. Here, the
agency provided substantive evidence of Hannan’s willful and material
misrepresentations, including documentary evidence of the false application and
Hannan’s direct testimony. DHS carried its burden of proof.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
Hannan’s motion for reconsideration.
PETITIONS DENIED.