Claudia Marcela Barco Diaz v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-12790 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12790 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A079-513-870 CLAUDIA MARCELA BARCO DIAZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 13, 2018) Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-12790 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 2 of 4 Claudia Marcela Barco Diaz (“Barco”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision sustaining a removability charge under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), based on inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), for willfully misrepresenting a material fact to procure adjustment of status. Barco argues that there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the BIA’s determination that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) had proven by clear and convincing evidence that she knew of or authorized the misrepresentations on her adjustment application that was filed on her behalf by her attorney Marcial Cordero. She argues that the government did not provide evidence of her knowledge of the misrepresentations at the time of the application, although she admits knowing about them (and lying to the government about them) later. She contends that her post-adjustment- conduct and the agency’s adverse credibility finding are not sufficient evidence of her contemporaneous knowledge of the misrepresentations in her application. This Court reviews the BIA decision as the final agency decision, but also reviews the IJ decision if the BIA adopted it or to the extent the BIA expressly agreed with its reasoning. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010); Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009). 2 Case: 17-12790 Date Filed: 07/13/2018 Page: 3 of 4 This Court reviews factual determinations under the substantial-evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th Cir. 2006). This Court views the evidence in “the light most favorable to the agency’s decision and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision.” Id. This Court must affirm the decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. at 1254–55 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, in order for this Court to conclude that a finding of fact should be reversed, this Court must determine that the record “compels” reversal. Id. (quotation omitted). The mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify reversal of the agency’s findings. Id. Rather, this Court must affirm the agency’s decision unless there is no reasonable basis for its decision. Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1029 (11th Cir. 2004). The government has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that an alien admitted to the United States is deportable. INA § 240(c)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). An alien is ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals