USCA11 Case: 18-10229 Date Filed: 10/13/2020 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10229 ________________________ Agency No. A098-548-548 JUAN CARLOS HINCAPIE-ZAPATA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 13, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: Juan Carlos Hincapie-Zapata petitions for review of a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board denied Hincapie-Zapata’s USCA11 Case: 18-10229 Date Filed: 10/13/2020 Page: 2 of 13 application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident because it concluded that he provided “material support” to a terrorist organization, which rendered him inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I), (iv)(VI). Hincapie-Zapata argues that we should reverse that decision because his $100 payment to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia was made under duress and was insignificant. Because binding precedent forecloses the former argument and the statute’s text forecloses the latter, we deny the petition. I. BACKGROUND In 2001, Hincapie-Zapata owned a restaurant in Colombia, where he sometimes hosted political meetings in support of the Liberal Party. One day, three members of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia entered Hincapie- Zapata’s restaurant and “told him that it would cost money for him to safely run his business.” Hincapie-Zapata “felt threatened,” so he gave the guerillas “200,000 Colombian pesos, the equivalent of approximately $100 at the time.” The guerillas told Hincapie-Zapata that they expected monthly payments, so he fled town. Hincapie-Zapata later learned that some guerillas returned to his restaurant with a warning “that he would have to answer about his absence.” On May 18, 2004, Hincapie-Zapata entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with permission to remain until November 17, 2004. Before that deadline, he applied for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 2 USCA11 Case: 18-10229 Date Filed: 10/13/2020 Page: 3 of 13 §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3)(A). Because Hincapie-Zapata remained in the United States past November 17, 2004, without permission, the Department of Homeland Security issued him a notice of removal in 2008. See id. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Hincapie-Zapata then married a United States citizen. After his wife successfully filed an I-130 Visa Petition on his behalf, Hincapie-Zapata filed an I- 485 application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). An immigration judge granted the application, over the government’s objection that Hincapie-Zapata provided “material support” to a terrorist organization through his single payment to Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. The immigration judge ruled the material-support bar did not apply because Hincapie-Zapata made the payment under duress. The government appealed that decision. It argued that there was no “duress” or “de minimis” exception to the material-support bar. See id. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). The Board, without answering these questions, remanded because the immigration judge had failed to provide a full analysis of his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The immigration judge again ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals