694 Fed.Appx. 743 (11th Cir. 2017), 16-16181, Soto v. U.S. Attorney General
|Citation:||694 Fed.Appx. 743|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||ANGEL FRANCISCO SOTO, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent|
|Attorney:||For ANGEL FRANCISCO SOTO, Petitioner: Angel Rafael Matos-Gonzalez, Law Office of Angel Matos, ORLANDO, FL. For U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent: Janette L. Allen, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Colette Jabes Winston, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, WASHINGTO...|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 24, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A075-426-736.
For ANGEL FRANCISCO SOTO, Petitioner: Angel Rafael Matos-Gonzalez, Law Office of Angel Matos, ORLANDO, FL.
For U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent: Janette L. Allen, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Colette Jabes Winston, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, WASHINGTON, DC; Nicole Guzman, DHS, Office of Chief Counsel, ORLANDO, FL; OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation, WASHINGTON, DC.
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
During an interview with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers, Angel Soto signed a sworn affidavit admitting that he married a United States citizen so that he could become a lawful permanent resident. In light of that admission, DHS commenced removal proceedings against Soto. At his removal hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Soto recanted his admission, claiming that he signed the affidavit under duress. One of the DHS officers who interviewed Soto, however, offered testimony that undercut Soto's claim of duress. The IJ concluded that the DHS officer's testimony was credible and Soto's testimony was not. And the IJ held that Soto is removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act for having procured admission to the United States through marriage fraud. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Soto now petitions for review of the IJ and BIA's removal determination.
After careful consideration of the record and the parties' briefs, we deny Soto's petition for review. Soto argues that the IJ and BIA erred because (1) insufficient evidence exists to support removal and (2) due process violations tainted the removal determination. Neither argument is availing.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP