Pablo Apaza-Ore v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 22-10412 Date Filed: 11/22/2022 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10412 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ PABLO APAZA-ORE, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A088-075-416 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10412 Date Filed: 11/22/2022 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10412 Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Pablo Apaza-Ore, a native and citizen of Peru, filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. Mr. Apaza- Ore argues that the BIA should have reopened his immigration proceedings because the IJ violated due process by reaffirming a prior adverse credibility finding before holding a scheduled hearing on his case. Mr. Apaza-Ore argues that this deprived him of an op- portunity to present additional evidence and arguments after the BIA had previously remanded the record for the IJ to issue an up- dated removal order. Because the IJ’s actions were consistent with the BIA’s remand order and Mr. Apaza-Ore had a full and fair op- portunity to be heard, we affirm. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or agrees with the opinion of the IJ. See Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review constitutional claims, including claims that the BIA’s actions violated due process, de novo. See Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). An alien may move to reopen his removal order. See INA § 240(c)(7), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Such a motion must “state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary USCA11 Case: 22-10412 Date Filed: 11/22/2022 Page: 3 of 6 22-10412 Opinion of the Court 3 material.” See INA § 240(c)(7)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B). A mo- vant “bears a heavy burden, and must present evidence of such a nature that the BIA is satisfied that if proceedings before the IJ were reopened, with all attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case.” Ali, 443 F.3d at 813 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). The Fifth Amendment “entitles petitioners in removal pro- ceedings to due process of the law.” Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010). Due Process requires that “aliens be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in their removal proceedings.” Id. Further, “[d]ue process is satisfied only by a full and fair hearing.” Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 548 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). To establish a violation of due process, a petitioner must show that he “was deprived of liberty without due process of law,” and that the error caused him substantial …

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