Denial of “asylum”; “Frivolous” asylum application; 8 USC § 1158(d)(6); 8 CFR § 1208.20; Alexandrov v. Gonzales; Ceraj v. Mukasey; Matter of Y–L– (BIA); 8 USC § 1252(b)(4)(B); “Refugee”; Kouljinski v. Keisler; § 1101(a)(42)(A); Past persecution; 8 CFR § 1208.13(b); Whether the application was “frivolous”; Effect of an adverse credibility determination; Limbeya v. Holder (8th Cir.); “Materiality” of the false statements; Kungys v. United States; Matter of B–Y– (BIA); Neitzke v. Williams; Ghazali v. Holder; Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); Immigration judge (IJ)

The court granted the petitioner-Yousif’s (a Chaldean Christian from Iraq) petition for review of the denial of his asylum claim and remanded the case to the BIA to “reconsider and clarify” its decision that his asylum application was “frivolous.” Yousif had been granted a withholding of removal, but was denied asylum based on misstatements regarding prior persecution in his application. The issue was whether the false statements were “material” to the application “at the time that the application was made[,]” rendering his application “frivolous.” Yousif argued that his misrepresentations were immaterial to his asylum application because, as a Chaldean Christian, he would have been eligible for asylum based on his status alone, “regardless of whether he had been personally persecuted.” The court noted that lying on an asylum application was “not enough to support a frivolousness finding[]”— the misrepresentation must be “material” to the application. The misrepresentation or concealment “is material only if it had the potential to make a difference to the outcome of the asylum application.” If Yousif was eligible for asylum as a Chaldean Christian at the time he filed his application, the court found it “difficult to discern how his plainly meritorious application could be considered ‘frivolous’ under the language of the statute, regardless of how many additional lies it contained.” The IJ should have determined whether, at the time that he made his application, “conditions in Iraq were so dangerous for Chaldean Christians that Yousif would have been eligible for asylum” solely based upon his religion. By not making this determination, the IJ failed to determine whether the “misrepresentations were material to his application when they were made.” The court granted the petition, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded for the BIA to provide “a reasoned explanation” for affirming the IJ’s decision.