USCA11 Case: 20-13941 Date Filed: 09/09/2021 Page: 1 of 14 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-13941 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A078-960-300 LEOVEL PERAZA-PAZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 9, 2021) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-13941 Date Filed: 09/09/2021 Page: 2 of 14 Leovel Peraza-Paz seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen proceedings to apply for readjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 1 (CAA) and a waiver of inadmissibility under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Peraza-Paz identifies several issues in his petition for review, which we address in turn. After review,2 we deny his petition. I. BACKGROUND Peraza-Paz, a native and citizen of Cuba, was paroled into the United States in 2002, and adjusted his status to a lawful permanent resident in 2003. In 2010, Peraza-Paz was convicted of health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, sentenced to 71 months’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay $2,544,854 in restitution. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security served Peraza-Paz with a notice to appear, charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1 Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (Nov. 2, 1966). The CAA is codified as a historical note to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 2 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). We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s opinion. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). 2 USCA11 Case: 20-13941 Date Filed: 09/09/2021 Page: 3 of 14 for being convicted of an aggravated felony involving fraud in which the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000. At Peraza-Paz’s removal proceedings, the IJ instructed Peraza-Paz the IJ would determine whether he was eligible for adjustment of status or a waiver for any crime committed, and informed him of his rights to be represented by an attorney and to appeal to the BIA, which he could elect to waive. Peraza-Paz testified he was convicted of healthcare fraud, which he understood was an aggravated felony, and the IJ found the charges were established by clear and convincing evidence. Peraza-Paz also testified he was not married to a United States citizen or legal permanent resident, that neither his parents nor his grandparents were United States citizens or legal permanent residents, and he did not have United States citizen children but that he had a sister who was a United …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals