Jiang Lin v. Sessions, 682 F. App'x 82

Jiang Lin, a Chinese national, filed an asylum application that the IJ and BIA found frivolous for knowingly submitting fabricated claims and documents.
The IJ and BIA concluded Lin admitted in an affidavit that his claim was "made up" and that he knew it before filing. Lin also obtained some supporting false documents himself.
Lin received oral and written warnings about the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application before signing; he was 17 when he signed the application and 18 when he later executed the affidavit.
Lin argued he lacked capacity because he was a minor influenced by unscrupulous counsel and later claimed ineffective assistance by a second attorney who advised admitting fraud rather than withdrawing.
The agency found Lin had adequate opportunity to explain discrepancies, rejected his explanations, and relied on evidence (including the raid on his first attorney’s firm) suggesting fraud would have been discovered even if he had withdrawn.
The Second Circuit denied review of the BIA’s affirmance, concluding procedural safeguards were observed, substantial evidence supported knowledge of falsity, and Lin showed no prejudice from counsel’s actions.

Issue	Lin's Argument	Sessions' Argument	Held
Whether agency followed procedural safeguards before finding frivolousness	Lin: Agency failed to give proper notice and opportunity to explain due to his minor status and counsel influence	Sessions: Agency provided oral and written warnings and afforded opportunity to explain	Held: Agency complied with safeguards; warnings and opportunities were adequate
Whether Lin knowingly and materially fabricated asylum claim	Lin: Lacked capacity; coerced by counsel; did not knowingly falsify	Sessions: Lin admitted in affidavit that claim was made up; record shows he procured false documents	Held: Substantial evidence supports finding Lin knowingly filed fabricated claims
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel violated due process	Lin: Second attorney’s advice to admit fraud (rather than withdraw) was ineffective and prejudicial	Sessions: No cognizable prejudice shown; withdrawn applications can still support frivolousness findings	Held: No due-process violation; Lin failed to show prejudice
Whether independent Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies; burden of proof on frivolousness	Lin: Contended right to counsel and/or different burden	Sessions: No Sixth Amendment right in immigration proceedings; burden issues waived	Held: No Sixth Amendment right; burden argument waived for not raising before agency

Mei Juan Zheng v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2008) (frivolous asylum applications lead to permanent ineligibility)
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration appeals)
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 2002) (substantial-evidence review principles)
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (standard for reversing under substantial-evidence review)
Mei Juan Zheng v. Holder, 672 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2012) (withdrawn applications can support frivolousness findings)
Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (prejudice requirement for due-process claims in immigration context)
Debeatham v. Holder, 602 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2010) (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in immigration proceedings)
Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (issues not presented to the agency are waived)