[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-16181

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A075-426-736

ANGEL FRANCISCO SOTO, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(July 24, 2017)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-16181 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

During an interview with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers, 

Angel Soto signed a sworn affidavit admitting that he married a United States 

citizen so that he could become a lawful permanent resident. In light of that 

admission, DHS commenced removal proceedings against Soto. At his removal 

hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Soto recanted his admission, claiming 

that he signed the affidavit under duress. One of the DHS officers who 

interviewed Soto, however, offered testimony that undercut Soto’s claim of duress. 

The IJ concluded that the DHS officer’s testimony was credible and Soto’s 

testimony was not. And the IJ held that Soto is removable under the Immigration 

and Nationality Act for having procured admission to the United States through 

marriage fraud. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G). The Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Soto now petitions for review of the IJ and BIA’s

removal determination.

After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we deny 

Soto’s petition for review. Soto argues that the IJ and BIA erred because (1)

insufficient evidence exists to support removal and (2) due process violations 

tainted the removal determination. Neither argument is availing. 

First, substantial evidence supports the removal determination. See Bigler v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 728, 732 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (reviewing an IJ’s 

removal determination for substantial evidence); Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 

Case: 16-16181 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

F.3d 855, 860 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting that the substantial-evidence 

standard is “highly deferential”). Soto’s sworn affidavit and the DHS officer’s 

testimony support the removal determination. The affidavit includes an admission 

of marriage fraud, and the DHS officer’s testimony corroborated the affidavit and 

confirmed its validity.1

Second, none of Soto’s due process arguments have merit. Soto, for 

example, argues that his due process rights were violated because the IJ allowed 

the DHS officer to testify telephonically. But even assuming that the IJ’s decision 

to allow telephonic testimony somehow violated Soto’s due process rights, Soto 

has failed to show “substantial prejudice.” See Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 

1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

PETITION DENIED.

 1 Soto argues that his own testimony discredited the affidavit, and he asserts that the DHS 

officer’s testimony was not reliable. However, the IJ and BIA found Soto’s testimony unreliable 

and the DHS officer’s testimony reliable, and both findings are supported by substantial 

evidence. See Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[C]redibility 

determinations . . . are reviewed under the substantial evidence test.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

Case: 16-16181 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 3 of 3