
    Henny LAUT, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73438.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed July 18, 2014.
    Henny Laut, Anaheim Hills, CA, pro se.
    
      Joel Spence, Law Office of Joel Spence, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Timothy Hayes, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WARDLAW and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Kent J. Dawson, Senior U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Henny Laut (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Indonesia, appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) entering a finding of frivolousness as to Petitioner’s asylum application, and the BIA’s affirmation of the Immigration Judge’s denial of withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We also grant the motion to supplement the record.

Petitioner’s accounts of targeted violence and temple-burning were material elements of her asylum application under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20. See, e.g., Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir.2010). Petitioner knowingly and intentionally misrepresented these accounts in her asylum application and interview. Such deliberate fabrication is all that is necessary to establish the scienter requisite for a finding of frivolousness. Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 156 (BIA 2007). The BIA properly reviewed de novo the application of the framework set forth in Matter of Y-L-. See id. at 158-59; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(h). However, the result for Petitioner is unchanged even if the BIA had reviewed a question of fact, requiring application of the “clear error” standard. See Gallegos-Vasquez v. Holder, 636 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.2011); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). Lastly, Petitioner cannot demonstrate that it is “more likely than not that [s]he would be subject to [future] persecution.” Al-Harbi v. I.N.S., 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the BIA properly denied withholding of removal.

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     