United States v. 2020-03-12 | 18-70785 | KYAW LIN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KYAW SOE LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70785

Agency No. A095-875-341

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 2, 2020
**

Seattle, Washington

Before: IKUTA, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Kyaw Soe Lin admittedly filed a frivolous asylum application
based on fraudulent allegations of persecution. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
determined Lin was given adequate notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous
application and was thus barred from any immigration relief. See 8 U.S.C.

*
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).
FILED

MAR 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
§ 1158(d)(4), (6). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s
removal order. Lin petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for review.
Lin claims he did not have adequate notice of the consequences of filing a
frivolous asylum application because he did not understand English and the
translator who helped him did not advise him of the consequences. Lin, however,
twice signed his name under the written notice provided on his immigration forms,
and the translator certified the written notice was properly translated. Printed
notice is adequate even where an applicant has limited English proficiency or
claims error by the translator. Cheema v. Holder, 693 F.3d 1045, 1046 (9th Cir.
2012); see Kulakchyan v. Holder, 730 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2013). Because Lin
signed his name on the written notice and Lin’s translator signed the notice
indicating that he read the notice to Lin and that Lin “understood,” substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Lin had notice of the consequences of
filing a frivolous asylum application. See Kulakchyan, 730 F.3d at 995.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.