USCA11 Case: 21-10203 Date Filed: 12/29/2021 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10203 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ BONIFACIO CRISOSTOMO-CARDONA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A098-719-039 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10203 Date Filed: 12/29/2021 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10203 Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Bonifacio Crisostomo-Cardona seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigra- tion Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to rescind his in absentia or- der of removal and reopen his immigration proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). On appeal, Crisostomo- Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, argues that he was de- prived of procedural due process because he did not receive notice of his removal hearing. He states that he did receive proper notice because: (1) he did not receive an oral warning in his native lan- guage of the contents of the notice to appear that he was personally served with and (2) his subsequently mailed notice of hearing and in absentia removal order was returned undelivered. He also ar- gues that, in an application attached to his motion, he established a prima facie showing for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), which the BIA and the IJ failed to consider. I. We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion or reasoning. Pe- rez-Zenteno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 913 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). When the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. Id. Here, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision and USCA11 Case: 21-10203 Date Filed: 12/29/2021 Page: 3 of 8 21-10203 Opinion of the Court 3 added its own observations. Thus, we review both decisions on appeal. See Perez-Zenteno, 913 F.3d at 1306. We review the denial of a motion to reopen an immigration proceeding for an abuse of discretion, under which we will only determine whether the BIA exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). The BIA abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law in reaching its decision, or when it fails to follow its own precedents without providing a reasoned explanation for doing so. Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 2013). The moving party bears a heavy burden, as motions to reopen in the context of removal proceedings are particularly disfavored. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo and its fac- tual findings under the “substantial evidence test.” Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 914 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2019). Under the highly deferential substantial evidence test, we must affirm the agency’s factual findings if they are “supported by reasonable, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals