
    Emmanuel ADEBAYO, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74059
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted November 15, 2016 San Francisco, California
    Filed FEBRUARY 14, 2017
    
      Sarah Kate Heilbrun, Attorney, Chelsea E. HaleyNelson, Esquire, Attorney, Haley-Nelson & Heilbrun, LLP, Oakland, CA, Aruna Sury, Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner
    Alexander Jacob Lutz, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: MELLOY, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the U,S, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Emmanuel Adebayo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review from the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his motion to remand for adjustment of status. Adebayo argues that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding in denying his motion. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny his petition for review.

“We review the Board’s denial of motions to remand for abuse of discretion.” Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA denied Adebayo’s motion for remand, explaining that Adebayo’s “past conduct in violating the terms of his visa and then filing an asylum application containing false information is not outweighed by his marriage, after he was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge, to a United States citizen.” Ade-bayo argues that the BIA abused its discretion by engaging in impermissible fact-finding when it stated that his asylum application contained false information. Adebayo contends that while the IJ noted numerous inconsistencies between Ade-bayo’s asylum application, asylum interview, and testimony, the IJ did not explicitly say that Adebayo’s asylum application contained false information.

To determine if the BIA’s statement that Adebayo’s application contained false information was factfinding, we must consider what factual findings the IJ made. After discussing the inconsistencies throughout Adebayo’s testimony, the IJ found that “[a]ll of these inconsistencies, when taken together, can have a ‘legitimate impact’ on a credibility analysis.” Looking at the specific inconsistencies regarding when Adebayo first heard of the Niger Delta Vigilante Movement (“NDVM”), the IJ noted, “[i]t does not make logical sense that Respondent first heard of the NDVM after he arrived in the United States, yet friends and family stipulated that he was a ‘strong member’ of that same organization.” The IJ also noted that “[a]ll responses by Respondent fail to resolve the internal incongruence between when Respondent testified he first learned of the NDVM and the extent of his knowledge of the NDVM that went back to at least 2005.” Further, discussing the inconsistencies regarding Adebayo’s membership in the NDVM, the IJ noted that Ade-bayo “fail[ed] to resolve the discrepancy between Respondent’s own documentation, submitted in support of his asylum claim, which confirms he was either a leader, or at a minimum a member of the NDVM, and his later testimony that he was never a member of the NDVM.”

After noting these inconsistencies and determining that Adebayo was not credible, the IJ addressed whether Adebayo’s asylum application was frivolous. The IJ explained, “[although the Court has found Respondent incredible, it does not necessarily follow that the same inconsistencies that undercut his testimony and declarations equate to a deliberately fabricated claim by Respondent. The Court does not find sufficient evidence that a material element was deliberately fabricated, such that it renders Respondent’s application barred as frivolous.”

Adebayo claims the BIA engaged in factfinding in denying his motion to remand when it stated that Adebayo’s application contained false information. Specifically, Adebayo contends the IJ found that Adebayo did not deliberately fabricate claims and that the inconsistencies supported an adverse credibility determination rather than explicitly finding that the application contained false information. Brief for Appellant at 27. Adebayo claims that “an adverse credibility finding does not automatically result in a finding that an applicant has falsified information in his application.” Brief for Appellant at 28 (citing Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 925-27 (9th Cir. 2011); Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir. 2010)).

Adebayo misstates the holdings in Liu and Khadka. Those cases hold that an adverse credibility determination does not necessarily result in a finding that an application is frivolous. Liu, 640 F.3d at 927; Khadka, 618 F.3d at 1002. Importantly, a finding that an application is frivolous requires that the applicant deliberately fabricated a material element of his application. Liu, 640 F.3d at 927. Thus, a finding of frivolousness requires that the application contained false information and that the applicant intended tb include that false information. Id. An asylum application, however, can contain false information without being frivolous.

In this ease, while the IJ did not explicitly state that Adebayo’s application contained false statements, that conclusion underlies the IJ’s reasons for making the adverse credibility determination, as seen in the passages quoted above. Additionally, while the IJ refused to find that Adebayo’s application was frivolous, the IJ’s reason for doing so was based on the IJ’s finding that Adebayo lacked the intent necessary to support a frivolous finding. Thus, despite Adebayo’s contention to the contrary, the BIA’s finding that Adebayo’s application contained false information is reconcilable with the IJ’s finding that the application was not frivolous. As a result, the BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding when it stated that Adebayo’s application contained false information.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     
      
      . On appeal, Adebayo also challenged the Immigration Judge’s ("IJ”) adverse credibility finding, arguing that it was not supported by substantial evidence. At the outset of oral argument, Adebayo’s attorney conceded that there was sufficient evidence to support the adverse credibility determination.
     