Case: 18-15160 Date Filed: 11/25/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15160 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-130-421 JOSEPH ORLANDO RAMIREZ-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. __________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _________________________ (November 25, 2019) Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-15160 Date Filed: 11/25/2019 Page: 2 of 5 Joseph Ramirez-Alvarez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Ramirez-Alvarez brings several issues on appeal, which we address in turn. After review, 1 we deny his petition for review. Ramirez-Alvarez contends the BIA erred in determining the IJ was not obligated to take new testimony or admit new evidence at his third merits hearing, and the IJ’s failure to accept new testimony or evidence violated his due process rights. Ramirez-Alvarez has not shown a due process violation, as the immigration court gave him an opportunity to be heard during his removal proceedings by permitting him to testify twice in support of his application in two separate merits hearings. See Fernandez-Bernal v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1304, 1310 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating due process requires that aliens be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in their removal proceedings). The IJ did not violate his due process rights by declining his offer to “recount” and “clarify” his prior 1 “When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, because the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision, we review only the BIA’s decision. See id. “In a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review conclusions of law de novo and factual determinations under the substantial evidence test.” Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). 2 Case: 18-15160 Date Filed: 11/25/2019 Page: 3 of 5 testimony at his third merits hearing. The BIA’s second remand order did not instruct the IJ to hold a hearing or to take any evidence or testimony, in contrast to the BIA’s first remand order which expressly directed the IJ to hold a new evidentiary hearing. Ramirez-Alvarez also asserts the BIA erred in determining he was not prejudiced by the IJ’s conduct of asking his former attorney, Grace Kennedy, to comment on the admission of new evidence after she had withdrawn from representing him. The BIA did not err in determining Ramirez-Alvarez was not prejudiced by the IJ’s conduct of asking Kennedy whether she read the remand order as instructing the court to hold a new hearing. The IJ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals