Court Opinion

ID: 9555070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 18:00:43.323567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:06.149048
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-61130     Document: 00516853113         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                ____________                                FILED
                                                                      August 10, 2023
                                  No. 20-61130                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                                Clerk

   Rene Flores-Valle,

                                                                      Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A074 087 091
                  ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Rene Flores-Valle, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
   of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
   immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for cancellation of
   removal.

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-61130      Document: 00516853113           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/10/2023

                                     No. 20-61130

          This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence, and this court will not disturb such findings unless the
   evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 517–18. This court reviews
   the BIA’s legal conclusions and its consideration of constitutional claims de
   novo. See Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Flores-Valle argues that the BIA’s decision was made ultra vires
   because it was signed by a temporary board member whose term had expired
   and is therefore legally invalid. This court considered an identical ultra vires
   argument in Carreon v. Garland, _ F.4th _, 2023 WL 4004120 (5th Cir.
   June 15, 2023). There, as here, the petitioner conceded “that the Attorney
   General has authority to renew the terms of temporary BIA members.” Id. at
   *3; see also 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(a)(4). This court took judicial notice of the
   temporary BIA members’ reappointment paperwork, which showed that the
   members in question “were reappointed by the Attorney General, not the
   Director.” Id.    Thus, the petitioner’s argument collapsed.         Here, the
   government also submits the temporary board member’s reappointment
   paperwork showing that the member was reappointed by the Attorney
   General to a new six-month term. This term covered the decision under
   review, a fact that fatally undermines Flores-Valle’s argument.
          Flores-Valle further argues that the BIA violated his right to due
   process by adopting the IJ’s decision to admit evidence alleging Flores-
   Valle’s involvement in extraneous criminal offenses.         In particular, he
   challenges the admission of Form I-213, prepared by the Department of
   Homeland Security (DHS), and a report from the Polk County Sheriff’s

                                          2
Case: 20-61130        Document: 00516853113              Page: 3      Date Filed: 08/10/2023

                                         No. 20-61130

   Department. 1
           This court has “long accepted” that Form I-213s “are admissible in
   civil removal proceedings.” United States v. Noria, 945 F.3d 847, 859 (5th
   Cir. 2019). Further, the BIA has made clear that “admission into the record
   of the information contained in . . . police reports is especially appropriate in
   cases involving discretionary relief from deportation, where all relevant
   factors concerning an arrest and conviction should be considered to
   determine whether an alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion.”
   Matter of Grijalva, 19 I. & N. Dec. 713, 722 (BIA 1988); see also Tenorio v.
   Holder, 603 F. App’x 283, 287 (5th Cir. 2015).
           Applying these principles, Flores-Valle has failed to show that the IJ’s
   admission of the DHS Form I-213 and the Polk County Sheriff’s Department
   report, even without the opportunity for cross-examination, violated due
   process. 2 The documents are fundamentally fair and probative, which is the
   test for admissibility of evidence in immigration proceedings. See Bustos-
   Torres v. INS, 898 F.2d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir. 1990). The documents, which
   were prepared in the ordinary course of business by public officials, are also
   reliable. See Noria, 945 F.3d at 859. Further, the IJ considered the documents
   in determining whether Flores-Valle’s application for cancellation of

           _____________________
           1
             Though Flores-Valle states that he is also challenging the admission of a report
   from the Federal Bureau of Investigation on due process grounds, he does not raise any
   specific argument related to the admission of that document in the body of his brief. As
   such, he has abandoned any such argument for failure to brief it. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
   324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
           2
            Despite complaining about his inability to cross-examine the drafters of the DHS
   Form I-213 and the Polk County Sheriff’s Department report, Flores-Valle never sought to
   subpoena them as witnesses. Though he claims that his attorney “went so far as to make a
   written and oral motion requesting that the IJ subpoena the officers who prepared the
   reports,” his citation to the record does not support his contention that any such motions
   were made.

                                               3
Case: 20-61130         Document: 00516853113              Page: 4       Date Filed: 08/10/2023

                                          No. 20-61130

   removal should be granted as a matter of discretion, a context in which the
   BIA has held that the admission of police reports into the record is
   “especially appropriate.” Matter of Grijalva, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 722.
           Flores-Valle also argues that by admitting the documents into
   evidence, the IJ departed from established agency procedures for the
   admission of evidence and violated his right to due process. He claims that
   the Government should have submitted the documents earlier in the removal
   proceedings, and he points to the Chapter 3.1(b)(ii)(A) of the Immigration
   Court Practice Manual, which states that supporting documents must be
   filed no later than 15 days prior to the final merits hearing, unless provided as
   rebuttal evidence. Flores-Valle has not shown that the IJ acted contrary to
   agency procedures in admitting the documents. The Government sought to
   introduce the DHS Form I-213 and the Polk County Sheriff’s Department
   report as rebuttal evidence to show that Flores-Valle was hiding his
   involvement in the drug trafficking activities mentioned in the documents. 3
           Finally, Flores-Valle argues that his appearance by video conference
   at his merits hearing violated his constitutional rights to access the courts and
   to confer with counsel and that the cumulative effect of the constitutional
   errors in his removal proceedings warrant reversal of the BIA’s decision.
   Though Flores-Valle’s argument “is couched in terms of due process” it is
   in fact a procedural issue “that the BIA has adequate mechanisms to address
   and remedy.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover,
   the BIA has decided that no constitutional due process issue arises from using
   a video link to facilitate his participation. Matter of R-C-R, 28 I.&N. Dec. 74

           _____________________
           3
            Even if the documents were not proper rebuttal evidence, the 15-day deadline
   Flores-Valle relies on applies only to individual hearings involving non-detained aliens, and
   Flores-Valle was detained during the course of his removal proceedings. See
   Chapter 3.1(b)(ii)(B) of the Immigration Court Practice Manual.

                                                4
Case: 20-61130     Document: 00516853113              Page: 5   Date Filed: 08/10/2023

                                       No. 20-61130

   (BIA 2020)(three-Member decision). Flores -Valle cites no federal court
   precedent contrary to this holding, we are aware of none, and we find no
   error. See Jinquan Liu v. Holder, 566 F. App’x 333, 334 (5th Cir. 2014).
   Because none of Flores-Valle’s alleged constitutional errors have merit, he
   has not shown that reversal of the BIA’s decision is warranted based on the
   cumulative effect of such errors.
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                            5