
    Santam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70815.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 10, 2013.
    Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    Timothy Hayes, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santam Singh, an Indian national, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision declaring his asylum application frivolous. Petitioner claims that the BIA’s affirmance was error, because Petitioner did not make a deliberate misrepresentation due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and because Petitioner received inadequate notice of his right to counsel. These arguments lack merit.

First, Petitioner concedes that he knew the statements in his asylum application and interview were false when made. Petitioner’s argument that his lawyer told him to lie thus only explains why he lied, rather than suggest that his lies were unknowing or involuntary. Second, the asylum application signed by Petitioner contained written warnings that adequately notified him “of both the consequences of knowingly filing a frivolous application for asylum as well as the privilege of being represented by counsel, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4)(A).” Cheema v. Holder, 693 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir.2012).

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