[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14809

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DANILO MALDONADO MACHADO, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A216-124-121

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 1 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14809

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Danilo Maldonado Machado seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration 

Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for adjustment of status, 

waiver of inadmissibility, and asylum. Machado argues that the 

BIA erred because the IJ (1) violated his constitutional right to due 

process, and (2) erred in holding that he is ineligible for an adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA). 

I.

Machado, a native and citizen of Cuba, is a graffiti artist and 

activist who uses art to protest and criticize the Castro regime. Due 

to his work as an activist, he has been arrested and imprisoned by 

the Cuban government on several occasions. On April 16, 2018, 

Machado was admitted to the United States on a six-month B2 visitor’s visa and remained past the expiration date of his visa. In November 2018, the Department of Homeland Security issued him a 

Notice to Appear, charging him as removable for remaining in the 

United States for a longer period than permitted by his visa. Machado conceded removability and filed an application for adjustment of status under the CAA. He also filed an application for 

waiver of inadmissibility related to his daughter. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 2 of 11
20-14809 Opinion of the Court 3

On August 14, 2019, the IJ held a hearing regarding his applications for adjustment of status and waiver of inadmissibility.1 

During the hearing, the government filed a Form I-261 which contained an additional factual allegation that Machado had been convicted of aggravated stalking under Fla. Stat. § 784.048(4). The 

form listed Alexandra Martinez, Machado’s ex-girlfriend, as the victim of this crime. Martinez is also the mother of Machado’s daughter.2 As a result, the form charged him as removable for having 

been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Machado admitted that he was convicted of aggravated stalking but 

denied the charge of removability. The IJ sustained the charge of 

removability and held a hearing on the issue.

At the hearing, both parties provided testimony and admitted evidence related to Machado’s overall moral character. Machado testified that he was born in Cuba, worked as an artist and 

peaceful human rights activist, and had two children. He recounted how he met Martinez and that, although their relationship 

ended, he never threatened her in any manner nor was he capable 

of being violent toward her. He acknowledged that was arrested 

1 He filed his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT) later in the proceedings while before 

the IJ. 

2 Martinez, a journalist, met and interviewed Machado while he was imprisoned in Cuba for organizing a march in the aftermath of Fidel Castro’s death. 

Martinez visited him in jail three times and became pregnant with their daughter, who was born in the United States.

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 3 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 20-14809

on September 18, 2018, for violating a restraining order Martinez 

filed against him, but stated it was a misunderstanding. Machado 

stated that he did not abuse drugs, including cocaine. Machado 

called several witnesses who collectively described him as a peaceful activist and non-violent person who did not abuse drugs or appear capable of stalking or harassing another. 

The government called Martinez to testify in support of the 

charge of removability. She testified that she ended her year and a 

half relationship with Machado and relocated to her parents’ home 

with their daughter. She said she made this decision because she 

feared for her and her daughter’s safety due to Machado’s prolonged drug use, erratic behavior, and his rough handling of their 

daughter. Martinez testified that Machado’s behavior worsened 

once the relationship ended, with Machado following her, banging 

on her car windows, forcing himself on her during supervised visits 

in front of their daughter, and refusing to leave after such visits. 

She decided to file a petition for a restraining order after Machado 

sent her threatening text messages saying that she would regret 

ever having said no to him, he was going to have her on a tight 

leash one day, and he was going to publish photos of her. 

Following Martinez’s testimony, the IJ continued the matter 

to allow Machado to file an application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protections under CAT. Machado stated in his applications that he had previously experienced mistreatment at the 

hands of Cuban police and feared future harm or mistreatment if 

he were to return to Cuba. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 4 of 11
20-14809 Opinion of the Court 5

The government then submitted documents provided by 

Martinez to substantiate her testimony that the IJ marked as Exhibit 12. Machado’s counsel reviewed Exhibit 12 and stated they 

would object to most of the documents because nothing was 

signed, certified, or notarized. Nevertheless, the IJ concluded that 

the documents were in support of Martinez’s testimony. 

Each party submitted further statements and documents to 

corroborate their respective testimony and positions. Machado

submitted documents to support his asylum claim which included

(1) letters from friends and political acquaintances attesting to his 

good and peaceable character; (2) several articles detailing his arrests and notoriety in Cuba on account of his political opinions and 

activism; (3) a copy of his testimony before the United States Senate 

concerning human rights abuses in Cuba; and (4) a copy of the article written by Martinez detailing Machado’s arrest and detention 

by Cuban officials. 

The government’s submissions included (1) screenshots of 

threatening messages purportedly sent from Machado to Martinez 

in Spanish with uncertified translations; (2) a photo posted on social 

media that appears to depict Machado snorting cocaine; (3) a domestic violence report filed in Holland by the mother of Machado’s 

other child, stating that Machado had mistreated her emotionally, 

was unstable, and was psychologically blackmailing her, causing 

her to be afraid and to think that he was dangerous; (4) a statement 

from an art collector claiming that Machado impersonated him and 

stole all of the art he had purchased from Machado since 2015; and 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 5 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 20-14809

(5) other social media posts that show guns and weapons allegedly 

in the possession of Machado. The IJ allowed both parties submissions into the record. The IJ, however, was unable to finish the 

case and thus a substitute IJ was assigned.

The substitute IJ issued a written decision, stating that he 

had “familiarized [himself] with the entire record of proceedings”

and was “prepared to render [his] decision.” The substitute IJ noted 

that he had “considered all admitted evidence in its entirety, regardless of whether specifically mentioned in the text of this decision.” The substitute IJ found that, after considering the totality of 

the circumstances, Machado lacked credibility because his account 

of events was inconsistent with the other evidence in the record. 

The substitute IJ also determined that Machado had not established 

eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility because he had not shown 

that denial of his admission to the United States would cause his 

daughter extreme hardship.

As to Machado’s request for adjustment of status under the 

CAA, the substitute IJ found that Machado was ineligible due to his 

Florida conviction for aggravated stalking, which the substitute IJ 

determined to be a CIMT. Alternatively, the substitute IJ determined that Machado did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion for a litany of reasons including, but not limited to, (1) his serious conviction for aggravated stalking; (2) his violation of a restraining order; (3) Martinez’s testimony that she feared Machado 

due to his erratic behavior and drug use; (4) the photograph of Machado that appears to depict cocaine use; (5) the domestic violence 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 6 of 11
20-14809 Opinion of the Court 7

report filed in Holland; (5) the social media posts showing photos 

of firearms and weapons; (6) Machado’s lack of rehabilitation and 

remorse for his actions; and (7) the fact that Machado lacked significant ties to the United States. 

As to Machado’s asylum claim, the substitute IJ found that 

his application for asylum was untimely and that the circumstances 

did not merit an exception to the filing deadline. Further, the substitute IJ summarily found that it would not exercise its discretion 

to grant Machado asylum. Nonetheless, the substitute IJ found that 

Machado had suffered persecution and would suffer persecution by 

the Cuban government in the future based on a protected ground

and granted Machado’s application for withholding of removal. 

The BIA affirmed the substitute IJ’s findings. Machado appealed 

the BIA’s denial of his applications for waiver of inadmissibility, adjustment of status, and asylum.

II.

On appeal, Machado makes two arguments. First, he argues 

that his due process rights were violated by the admission of unauthenticated evidence, the giving of excessive weight to such evidence, the initial IJ’s expressions of impatience and distraction during the removal hearing, and a substitute IJ reaching an adverse 

credibility finding without having witnessed the live hearing. Second, he argues that the BIA erred in affirming the substitute IJ’s 

holding that he was not eligible for an adjustment of status under 

CAA based on its finding that his Florida conviction for aggravated 

stalking was a CIMT. We address each argument in turn.

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 7 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 20-14809

A.

We first turn to Machado’s due process claim. “We review 

the BIA’s decision only, except where, as in this case, the BIA expressly adopted or agreed with the immigration judge’s decision.” 

Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021). 

“We review factual findings under the substantial evidence test and 

legal conclusions de novo.” Id.

Due process requires that petitioners in removal proceedings “be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Lapaix v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 

To establish a due process violation, the petitioner must show that 

he was deprived of liberty without due process and that the asserted errors caused him substantial prejudice. Id. To show substantial prejudice, the petitioner must demonstrate that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for the alleged errors. Id. 

Machado’s due process rights were not violated by the IJ’s 

admission and weighing of unauthenticated evidence because such 

evidence was probative of his character and relevant to the issue of 

whether he would receive the requested relief. See In re Y-S-L-C-, 

26 I. & N. Dec. 688, 690 (BIA 2015) (“It is well established that the 

Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding in immigration proceedings, where the test for admitting evidence is whether it is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.”); In re D-R-, 25 I. & N. 

Dec. 445, 458 (BIA 2011) (“Immigration Judges have broad discretion to admit and consider relevant and probative evidence.”). 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 8 of 11
20-14809 Opinion of the Court 9

Moreover, Machado has not shown that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different but for the admission of such 

evidence. See Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1143. 

Machado’s due process rights also were not violated by the 

initial IJ’s expressions of impatience and distraction during the 

hearing. Such expressions were not evidence of judicial bias and 

occurred at insubstantial moments during the proceedings, and 

Machado nevertheless was given notice and opportunity to be 

heard. See id. at 1143–44. Further, his due process rights were not 

violated by the substitute IJ reaching an adverse credibility finding 

without having witnessed the live hearing because the IJ complied 

with federal regulations in doing so and considered the entire record. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(b) (providing that if an IJ becomes unavailable to complete their duties, another IJ may be assigned to complete the case and that the new IJ shall familiarize themself with the 

record and state for the record that they have done so). 

B.

We now turn to Machado’s second argument that the BIA 

erred in determining that he was not eligible for an adjustment of 

status under the CAA.

Whether a petitioner’s conviction qualifies as a CIMT is a 

legal question that we retain jurisdiction to review. Cano v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 709 F.3d 1052, 1053 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). We, 

however, decline to review whether the Florida aggravated stalking constitutes a CIMT. This is because even if Florida aggravated 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 9 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 20-14809

stalking does not constitute a CIMT, the substitute IJ alternatively 

denied relief based on its finding that Machado did not warrant a 

favorable exercise of discretion. See Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d 

at 1250.

The BIA found that Machado did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s discretionary finding on appeal to the BIA. Such a 

finding was proper because, although Machado argued that the IJ’s 

alleged due process violations undermined the discretionary analyses in the case, he did not specifically challenge the substance of 

the alternative discretionary finding. Thus, Machado failed to exhaust any argument that the substance of the IJ’s alternative discretionary finding was improper, and this court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider any such argument. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (finding the 

court lacked jurisdiction to consider a claim the petitioner did not 

raise before the BIA). 

The denial of discretionary relief does not implicate a constitutional right or question of law, and, thus, this court does not 

have jurisdiction to review the substance of the IJ’s alternative discretionary finding. Cano, 709 F.3d at 1053; Mohammed v. Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1250 (11th Cir. 2001) (a petitioner has no constitutional right to discretionary relief). To the extent that Machado argues that the IJ violated his due process rights in reaching 

the alternative finding, such an argument is meritless because Machado was given notice and an opportunity to be heard and failed 

to raise the argument. See Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1143. Regardless of 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 10 of 11
20-14809 Opinion of the Court 11

whether the Florida aggravated stalking constitutes a CIMT, the 

substitute IJ’s alternative discretionary finding was a valid basis to 

deny his application for adjustment of status under the CAA. Perez 

v. USCIS, 774 F.3d 960, 965 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm. 

Petition Denied. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14809 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 11 of 11