Status as of July 31, 2026. On July 28, Homeland Security Investigations issued a Notice of Intent to Fine against attorney Suraj Raj Singh; DHS announced it on July 30. The agency seeks $470,584 — the maximum permissible amount under 8 U.S.C. § 1324c (INA 274C) — for 118 documents that ICE alleges were filed in 54 asylum cases. This is the second such action: the first, against attorney Vinod Doddamani, began on June 22, 2026. Neither matter has resulted in a final decision. A Notice of Intent to Fine is a charging document, not a fine.
For the second time in six weeks, the Department of Homeland Security has invoked the civil document fraud statute against an immigration attorney. Formally, the claim is directed at a lawyer. Its practical reach is wider: the same statute applies to applicants themselves, and the marker the agency relies on — identical persecution narratives in declarations signed by different people — may affect any client whose declaration was prepared through such a practice, including those whose circumstances were real.
Contents
What happened
On July 28, 2026, Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of DHS, issued a Notice of Intent to Fine against attorney Suraj Raj Singh. The agency announced the action on July 30.
According to DHS, Singh maintains a nationwide practice in which he mostly represents Indian nationals and seeks asylum on their behalf before the immigration courts. The core allegation: the applicants' declarations filed in support of those claims are identical or nearly identical in language and substance, containing the same or nearly the same factual narrative and supporting details regarding the claimed persecution. In total, the notice covers 54 immigration cases and 118 documents that ICE alleges are fraudulent. The agency seeks the maximum permissible fine of $470,584.
The legal basis is 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d) — section 274C of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is a civil provision, not a criminal one. Subsection 274C(a)(5), added by IIRIRA in 1996, makes it unlawful to prepare, file, or assist another in preparing or filing any application for benefits under the INA with knowledge of, or in reckless disregard of, the fact that the application or document was falsely made.
In both cases, the proposed penalty works out to exactly $3,988 per document — the current inflation-adjusted ceiling for a single document.
Why this is the second such case
The first attorney to face such an action was Vinod Doddamani. On June 22, 2026, HSI issued five Notices of Intent to Fine against him, seeking $255,232 in total for 64 documents across 32 cases. The wording of the allegation in the DHS release tracks the wording of the DHS release concerning Singh almost verbatim: identical or nearly identical declarations describing the same claimed persecution, a nationwide practice, predominantly Indian clients.
Speaking to Fox News Digital, Doddamani denied any wrongdoing, said DHS had the wrong person, and attributed the filings to a rogue employee and his office manager.
Together the two notices cover 182 documents in 86 cases and $725,816 in proposed penalties. DHS has not alleged that the two attorneys worked together.
Both actions follow a May 26, 2026 directive from DHS General Counsel James Percival instructing department attorneys to take additional steps against asylum claims deemed fraudulent — through fines, cease-and-desist orders, and disciplinary referrals. Commenting on the Singh notice, Percival said fraudulent asylum claims undermine the immigration system and delay the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, and pledged to hold attorneys accountable.
Singh's own position is not known as of publication: DHS has not released the charging documents, and news outlets that sought comment from the attorney received no response. Everything described about his conduct is the agency's allegation, not an established fact.
How the fine procedure works
A Notice of Intent to Fine is a charging document. On its own it creates no obligation to pay and establishes no liability.
The procedure that follows is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(d) and 28 C.F.R. part 68:
Stage | Deadline and substance |
|---|---|
Request for hearing | 60 days from receipt of the notice. The case goes to an administrative law judge at the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), a component of EOIR within the Justice Department — not an immigration court |
If no hearing is requested | The notice is adopted as the final order (28 C.F.R. § 68.52) |
Standard of proof | Preponderance of the evidence, borne by the government |
Administrative review | Request to the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer within 10 days of the judge's order (28 C.F.R. § 68.54(a)(1)); review by the Attorney General may follow |
Judicial review | Petition for review in the appropriate federal court of appeals within 45 days |
Until now, section 274C has been applied mainly to counterfeit Social Security cards and green cards used for employment. Applying it to the content of asylum declarations is a new direction, and how OCAHO will assess that approach is not yet known.
What the document fraud statute means for an applicant
Section 274C is not written about attorneys. It reaches any person, and an applicant who knowingly used a falsely made document to obtain an INA benefit falls within it just as the preparer does. OCAHO case law includes decisions in which the respondent was the noncitizen.
A final order under 274C carries consequences separate from the money penalty:
Inadmissibility. INA 212(a)(6)(F): a noncitizen subject to a final order for violating 274C is inadmissible. On the consular side this is mirrored in 22 C.F.R. § 40.66.
Deportability. INA 237(a)(3)(C)(i): the same final order renders a noncitizen deportable, green card holders included.
The waiver is narrow. Relief under INA 212(d)(12) is available to a lawful permanent resident against whom no prior civil money penalty under 274C was imposed and whose offense was committed solely to assist a spouse or child. The standard 212(i) waiver does not reach this ground.
A separate carve-out. Section 274C(d)(7) permits waiving the penalty for a violation of subsection (a)(6) where the person is granted asylum under section 208 or withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3). It is a narrow exception, not a general rule.
The lifetime bar for a knowingly frivolous asylum application
Alongside 274C there is a provision inside the asylum statute itself. INA 208(d)(6): if it is determined that a noncitizen has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum, that person is permanently ineligible for any benefits under the Act. This is not a denial of a particular case: it is a permanent bar to benefits under the INA, including adjustment of status to permanent residence, subject to the protection-related exceptions described below.
The threshold is high, and the regulation defines it precisely. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.20(a) and § 1208.20(a), a frivolousness finding requires all of the following:
the applicant received the notice required by INA 208(d)(4)(A), which is printed on Form I-589 itself;
a material element of the application was deliberately fabricated;
the applicant had sufficient opportunity during the proceedings to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim, and an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals entered a final order specifically finding the application frivolous.
A broader definition of frivolous — including applications based on false or fabricated evidence — was promulgated by the rule of December 11, 2020 (85 FR 80274). It never took effect: on January 8, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily enjoined it nationwide in Pangea Legal Services v. DHS, 512 F. Supp. 3d 966, and that injunction remains in place. The expanded paragraphs are visible in the eCFR text, but the earlier and narrower standard is what applies.
One point worth knowing separately: under 8 C.F.R. § 208.20(g), a frivolousness finding does not preclude seeking withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Neither confers status or a path to a green card, but both protect against return.
Why good-faith clients are exposed too
The marker DHS placed at the center of both cases is textual overlap between declarations signed by different applicants. That marker does not distinguish between a signer who invented a story and one whose story was real but was written up from a template supplied by the lawyer's office.
Several practical consequences follow, as practitioners describe them.
Credibility. Under INA 208(b)(1)(B)(iii), as amended by the REAL ID Act, the adjudicator may base a credibility determination on the internal consistency of the account, its plausibility, and inconsistencies with other record evidence, without regard to whether they go to the heart of the claim. A declaration that tracks a stranger's word for word lands squarely in that category, and rebutting it falls to the applicant.
Grants already issued are not untouchable. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(a)(1), a grant of asylum may be terminated on a showing of fraud in the application such that the person was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted. The burden rests on the government, by a preponderance of the evidence, but the mechanism exists — and the May directive on additional steps gives the mechanism renewed practical significance.
Lack of knowledge does not resolve the question by itself. Someone who told an attorney a true account and signed the declaration prepared for them signed a document bearing the statutory warning. Liability does not follow automatically — 208(d)(6) turns on knowingly, and 274C on knowledge or reckless disregard. But that distinction has to be established in a proceeding, not before one.
Ineffective assistance of counsel is a separate mechanism. In Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), the Board set out what such a claim requires: an affidavit describing the agreement with counsel and what counsel undertook to do; notice to the attorney of the allegations and an opportunity to respond; and a statement of whether a complaint was filed with the relevant bar authority, and if not, why. It is a distinct track with its own deadlines and standard, pursued through new counsel.
The key distinction. The case against the attorney is a civil monetary proceeding at OCAHO. It does not reopen clients' cases and does not vacate decisions already entered. Consequences for clients arise not from the attorney's fine but from separate proceedings: in an individual asylum case, under 274C against a specific person, or under 8 C.F.R. § 208.24. There is no automatic link between the notice and a client's case.
What an applicant's signature on the declaration means
Form I-589 contains the applicant's certification that the information is true and complete and — as INA 208(d)(4)(A) requires — the warning about the consequences of knowingly filing a frivolous application. A separate certification line is provided for the person who prepared the application at the applicant's request.
Beyond the civil provisions there is a criminal layer: 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (fraud and misuse of visas and other entry documents) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements to a federal agency). Section 274C(e) separately criminalizes concealing one's role as a paid preparer of a falsely made application. No criminal charges have been publicly announced against either Singh or Doddamani.
Frequently asked questions
Does the notice mean the attorney's clients will have their cases reopened?
No. A Notice of Intent to Fine is a civil proceeding against a specific person at OCAHO. It is not a procedural basis for reopening clients' cases. Reopening is possible only through separate mechanisms: an individual asylum proceeding, termination of asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.24, or a separate 274C notice directed at the applicant.
What is a frivolous asylum application?
An asylum application in which a material element was deliberately fabricated, found frivolous after the required warning and procedural safeguards. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20(a), such a finding is available only if the applicant received the notice required by INA 208(d)(4)(A), a material element of the application was deliberately fabricated, the applicant had sufficient opportunity to account for discrepancies, and an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals entered a final order specifically so finding. The consequence under INA 208(d)(6) is permanent ineligibility for benefits under the Act.
Does any protection remain if an application is found frivolous?
Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.20(g), a frivolousness finding does not preclude seeking withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Neither confers status or leads to a green card, but both protect against return to the country of feared harm.
Can a 274C fine be imposed on the applicant rather than the attorney?
Yes. 8 U.S.C. § 1324c reaches any person, and OCAHO case law includes proceedings in which the respondent was the noncitizen. A final order under 274C triggers inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(F) and deportability under INA 237(a)(3)(C)(i).
Have the attorneys been found liable?
No. As of July 31, 2026, both matters consist of notices of intent to fine only. No administrative law judge has ruled. Doddamani publicly denies wrongdoing; Singh's position is not known.
Official sources
Resource | What it covers |
|---|---|
Primary source on the Singh notice: amounts, document and case counts, wording of the allegation | |
The first case, against attorney Doddamani | |
Procedure and final orders in INA 274C cases | |
Criteria for finding an asylum application frivolous | |
Grounds and procedure for terminating a grant of asylum | |
The form text, applicant certification, and the INA 208(d)(4)(A) warning |
This material is informational and is not legal advice. Information is current as of July 31, 2026; both matters may develop. Any irreversible decision involving an asylum application or a change of representation warrants consultation with a licensed immigration attorney.