William Hernando Usma Acosta v. Todd Blanche

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviews a petition challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision concerning William Hernando Usma Acosta's removability and applications for immigration relief. The court addresses fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining lawful permanent resident status, credibility determinations, asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, waiver of inadmissibility, cancellation of removal, and limits on appellate jurisdiction. The court denies most claims and dismisses the remainder for lack of jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. An immigration judge's impatience, interjections, management of questioning, and allegedly acerbic tone did not establish deep-seated favoritism or antagonism, deny a full and fair hearing, or amount to a due process violation on this record.
2. Acosta could not challenge the agency's identity-based removability finding after his counsel conceded in the immigration court that William Usma Acosta was his true and correct name.
3. The agency's finding that Acosta procured immigration status by failing to disclose material facts about his marriage history was supported by substantial evidence and satisfied the applicable clear-and-convincing-evidence burden.
4. The agency properly denied asylum and statutory and CAT withholding because there were serious reasons to believe Acosta had committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States before his arrival.
5. The agency properly denied CAT deferral because Acosta failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in Colombia by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.
6. The First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge's discretionary denial of Acosta's waiver of inadmissibility.
7. The First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal.
8. The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Acosta's motion to reopen because his sisters' affidavit was not shown to be material and would not have changed the outcome.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the immigration judge's conduct and the BIA's handling of Acosta's appeal demonstrated judicial bias or denied him a full and fair hearing.
2. Whether the agency established Acosta's deportability by clear and convincing evidence based on his use of a false identity and failure to disclose prior marriages.
3. Whether the serious-nonpolitical-crime bar rendered Acosta ineligible for asylum and statutory or CAT withholding of removal.
4. Whether the agency erred in denying CAT deferral of removal for failure to establish that Acosta was more likely than not to be tortured in Colombia by or with the acquiescence of public officials.
5. Whether the First Circuit had jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of a waiver of inadmissibility and cancellation of removal.
6. Whether the agency abused its discretion by denying Acosta's motion to reopen based on his sisters' new affidavit.

Disposition

other