Mei Juan Zheng v. Holder
672 F.3d 178
2d Cir.2012Background
- Zheng, a Chinese national, attempted entry into the United States on March 27, 2000, with removal proceedings pending after a credible fear interview.
- On August 11, 2000 Zheng was warned that knowingly filing a frivolous asylum application would bar benefits, and she filed an asylum application asserting past and future persecution.
- On January 31, 2001 Zheng withdrew her April 2000 asylum application with prejudice; on May 25, 2001 she filed a May 2001 application for withholding of removal under CAT, stating she withdrew the previous false application because lying was wrong.
- At the April 30, 2003 merits hearing on the May 2001 application, Zheng testified she had never faced China’s family planning policy and that the prior false claim was fabricated under smugglers’ guidance; the IJ questioned whether 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 gave him discretion to enter a frivolousness finding.
- The IJ concluded Zheng knowingly filed a false asylum application and imposed a frivolousness finding; the BIA affirmed in 2004 without opinion, and this Court later remanded to address whether a withdrawn application can support frivolousness and whether the IJ has discretion to decline to make such a finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a withdrawn application serve as basis for frivolousness? | Zheng argues withdrawal should negate frivolousness. | BIA/MX-C- view allows withdrawn applications to trigger frivolousness. | Withdrawn applications may support a frivolousness finding. |
| Does an IJ have discretion to decline to enter a frivolousness finding when statutory preconditions are met? | IJ may have discretion not to enter such a finding given circumstances. | Once conditions are met, finding is mandatory. | IJ may have discretion not to enter a frivolousness finding; the Board’s view was unpersuasive on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mei Juan Zheng v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2008) (reaffirmed need to assess frivolousness and procedures; set remand questions)
- Lazar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2007) (withdrawal does not moot frivolousness inquiry)
- Chen v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2008) (withdrawal does not obviate frivolousness inquiry)
- Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 322 (BIA 2010) (frivolousness inquiry can be triggered by filing; applies to all filed applications)
- Rotimi v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2007) (Chevron deference considerations for agency interpretations)