[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-12887

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A037-330-764

YVETTE JOYCE WOOD, 

a.k.a. Ivette Joyce Murphy, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(April 23, 2021)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and LUCK, Circuit 

Judges.

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 1 of 9
2

PER CURIAM: 

Yvette Wood, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of a 

decision that affirmed her order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals 

agreed with an immigration judge that Wood was removable as an alien who voted 

in violation of federal, state, or local law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6). We deny 

Wood’s petition.

In 1981, Wood was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent 

resident based on her marriage to a U.S. citizen. In 1988, Wood was convicted in a 

New York court for criminal possession of marijuana for having 13 pounds of 

marijuana in her luggage. See N.Y. Law § 221.15. Wood was found inadmissible 

as a returning resident, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A), but in 1993 she received a waiver 

of inadmissibility, id. § 1182(h).

In February 1996, Wood registered to vote in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

A report of Wood’s voting history recorded that she voted in a primary election on 

October 1, 1996, in a general election on November 5, 1996, and in a primary 

election on September 5, 2000. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security 

charged Wood as removable as a native and citizen of Jamaica “who . . . voted in 

violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, 

or regulation” for voting in three federal elections. Id. § 1227(a)(6)(A).

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 2 of 9
3

Only citizens of the United States enjoy the right to vote in federal elections. 

U.S. Const. amend. XV, § 1; see Fla. Stat. § 97.041(1)(a)2. Effective September 

30, 1996, aliens are forbidden from “vot[ing] in any election held solely or in part 

for the purpose of electing a candidate for” federal office. 18 U.S.C. § 611(a). In 

Florida, as of January 1, 1995, a person is required when “[m]aking application for 

registration as an elector [to] take an oath . . . that I am qualified to register as an 

elector under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, and that I am a 

citizen of the United States.” Fla. Stat. § 97.051. The application for voter 

registration “elicit[s] the . . . [s]ignature of applicant under penalty for false 

swearing . . . by which the person . . . swears or affirms that the information 

contained in the registration application is true” and “[w]hether the applicant is a 

citizen of the United States.” Id. § 98.052(2)(q), (s). The application also describes 

the oath, the eligibility requirements, and the penalties for falsely swearing that the 

person is a qualified elector and a U.S. citizen. Id. § 98.052(3)(a)–(c). And in 

Florida, “[a] person who willfully swears or affirms falsely to any oath or 

affirmation . . . in connection with or arising out of voting or elections,” id.

§ 104.011(1), or “who willfully submits any false voter registration information 

commits a misdemeanor of the first degree,” id. § 104.011(2).

During her master calendar hearing, Wood admitted that she had voted in the 

three elections alleged in her notice to appear, but she refused to concede 

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 3 of 9
4

removability. Wood argued that the Department could not prove that she 

knowingly violated voting laws because she had “official authorization” to vote 

evidenced by the voter registration card she obtained in Florida. But Wood 

admitted that, to vote, “you do have to be a U.S. citizen.” The Department

responded that the law required only unlawful voting and submitted copies of 

Wood’s voting history report and her voter registration card.

The immigration judge admitted the exhibits without objection from Wood

and sustained the charge of removability. On Wood’s motion, the immigration 

judge granted Wood a continuance to apply for readjustment of her status. While 

her application was pending, her case was assigned to another immigration judge. 

Later, Wood moved to reconsider and to terminate her removal proceedings. 

Wood argued that the federal voting law did not prohibit voting by noncitizens 

when she registered to vote. Wood also argued that she could not have violated the 

federal voting law or state law because she had “official authorization” to vote. 

And Wood argued that she did not violate state law because it required that she 

knowingly and willingly vote without authorization. Wood submitted a letter 

stating that, in February 1996, she completed a voter registration application 

supplied by a group of people she approached outside a grocery store who said 

they were seeking assistance to support neighborhood projects and later received a 

voter registration card. In the letter, Wood admitted that she “voted in the primary 

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 4 of 9
5

and general elections in October of 1996 and the general election of September 

2000.”

The immigration judge denied Wood’s motion, found that “clear and 

convincing evidence” supported “the decision to sustain the charge” against her, 

and ordered her removed to Jamaica. The immigration judge determined that 

federal law allowed only “citizens of the United States” to vote in federal elections, 

that Wood had voted three times after federal law punished noncitizens for voting, 

and that she had “knowingly voted in a federal election” after receiving 

“constructive notice” in her voter registration application “that U.S. citizenship 

was a requirement to vote in Florida.” The immigration judge ruled that Wood 

could not “raise the official authorization defense when she ha[d] not provided full, 

complete, and accurate information to the evaluating official” and declined to 

decide “whether she . . . violated Florida law by voting without authorization.”

Wood raised five issues in her appeal to the Board, but only four issues are 

relevant to her petition for review. First, Wood argued that the Department failed 

to satisfy its burden of proof and denied her due process by failing to allege in her 

notice to appear what federal, state, or local voting law she had violated. Second, 

Wood argued that she mistakenly thought that she was eligible to vote. Third, 

Wood argued in passing, and for the first time, that the Department failed to 

establish that she did not qualify for an exception to the federal voting statute, 18 

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 5 of 9
6

U.S.C. § 611(a)(1)–(3). Fourth, Wood argued that she had official authorization to 

vote.

The Board “adopted and affirmed” the immigration judge’s decision. The 

Board rejected Wood’s arguments concerning the failure of the Department to 

identify the law she violated as unsupported by precedent and as without merit 

because she challenged the federal voting law in her motion to reconsider. Next,

the Board rejected Wood’s argument that she lacked intent to violate the federal 

voting law, 18 U.S.C. § 611. The Board stated that an alien who votes in an 

election involving candidates for federal office is removable from the United States 

“regardless of whether the alien knew . . . she was committing an unlawful act by 

voting.” Because the Department proved that Wood voted unlawfully as an alien, 

18 U.S.C. § 611, which made her removable, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6)(A), and she 

did “not dispute . . . that she voted in three federal elections in the United States” 

or “claim that she voted inadvertently or did not understand that the acts she 

performed constituted voting,” she violated the federal voting law. Third, the 

Board summarily rejected Wood’s argument concerning exceptions to the federal 

voting law on the ground that she did “not argue that any of the exceptions to 18

U.S.C § 611 apply.” Finally, the Board rejected Wood’s official authorization 

argument as “[un]persuasive” and, in the alternative, for failure to “present[] 

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 6 of 9
7

evidence, such as her voter registration application, to demonstrate that she 

accurately reflected that she was not a United States citizen.”

Because the Board affirmed the decision of the immigration judge, we 

review both their decisions. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 914 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th 

Cir. 2019). Our review of the decision is “limited” by “the highly deferential 

substantial evidence test,” under which “we must affirm if the decision of the 

Immigration Judge is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence 

on the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1237 

(11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We apply the substantial 

evidence test even when, as in this case, the government is required to prove its

case by clear and convincing evidence in the administrative forum.” Adefemi v. 

Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Under the substantial 

evidence test, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision of 

the immigration judge and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. 

Silva, 448 F.3d at 1236. We can reverse “only when the record compels a reversal; 

the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to 

justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi, 386 F.3d at 1027.

Wood has abandoned any challenge she could have made to the rejection of 

her arguments that she mistakenly believed that she could vote and that she had 

“official authorization” to vote. A petitioner abandons an issue by failing to 

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 7 of 9
8

address it in her petition for review. Jeune v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 797 n.2 

(11th Cir. 2016). Wood does not challenge, or even mention, the rulings that her 

arguments about mistake and about official authorization lacked merit.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Wood is removable as an alien 

who voted in violation of federal, state, or local law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6).

The federal voting law makes it unlawful for noncitizens to vote in federal 

elections. 18 U.S.C. § 611. Wood conceded during her master calendar hearing and 

in her letter supporting her motion for reconsideration that she was an alien who

voted in two general elections and one primary election after the effective date of 

the federal voting law. See Dos Santos v. United States Att’y Gen., 982 F.3d 1315, 

1319 (11th Cir. 2020). Wood challenges the finding that she voted in federal 

elections, but she “invited and acquiesced in” that finding. See Najjar v. Ashcroft, 

257 F.3d 1262, 1294 (11th Cir. 2001). Wood argued to the immigration judge and 

to the Board that she mistakenly thought she was eligible to and that she had 

“official authorization” to vote in federal elections. Wood never disputed that the 

three elections in which she voted involved selecting federal officials and may not 

contest that administrative finding in her petition for review. See id.

Wood faults the agency for failing to consider whether the three-part 

statutory exception to the federal voting law applies to her. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 611(a)(1)–(3). But “courts and agencies are not required to make findings on 

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 8 of 9
9

issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” Immigr. & 

Naturalization Serv. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Wood acknowledged 

that she voted in apparent violation of the federal voting law. So neither the 

immigration judge nor the Board had any need to address, and did not err in 

declining to address, whether the statutory exception to the federal voting law 

applied to Wood. See id.

In any event, the statutory exception would not apply to Wood. The 

exception applies only if “aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose 

under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance.” 18 U.S.C. § 611(a)(2). 

Beginning in 1995, aliens were ineligible to register to vote in Florida. See Fla. 

Stat. §§ 97.041, 97.051. So Wood violated Florida law when she registered to vote 

in 1996 and when she voted in the primary and general elections in 1996 and in the 

general election in 2000. 

We DENY Wood’s petition for review.

USCA11 Case: 20-12887 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 9 of 9