[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.

________________________ Petiti on 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 32 D uring 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 re c anted 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 off icer’s testimony wa s credible and Soto’s testimony wa s not . And the IJ held that Soto i s 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
(BI A) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Soto now petitions for review of the IJ and BIA’s

remova l 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)

insufficien t evidence exists to support remova l and (2 ) due process violations

taint ed the remova l determination . Neither argument is availing. First, substantial evidence sup ports the remova l determination

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

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

Case: 16-16181 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 2 of 33 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 remova l determination

. The affidavit includes a n admission of marriage fraud, and the DHS officer’s testimony c orroborate d the affidavit a nd

confirm ed its validity. 1
Second, none of S oto ’s due process arguments ha ve 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 wa s 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