Court Opinion

ID: 9892725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 18:02:38.911818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:45.439119
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14275   Document: 32-1      Date Filed: 10/24/2023    Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14275
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ASHRAF MOUSA SAID HMIDAN,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A095-533-552
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14275    Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 10/24/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                    Opinion of the Court                 22-14275

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-14276
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       ASHRAF MOUSA SAID HMIDAN,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A095-533-552
                          ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Ashraf Mousa Said Hmidan, a native and citizen of the Pal-
       estinian Territories, petitions for review of the denial of his
USCA11 Case: 22-14275      Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 10/24/2023      Page: 3 of 6

       22-14275                Opinion of the Court                           3

       application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immi-
       gration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The Board of Im-
       migration Appeals dismissed Hmidan’s appeal and affirmed the im-
       migration judge’s finding that he was inadmissible under section
       212(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I), for having
       “engaged in a terrorist activity,” id., when he threw rocks and Mol-
       otov cocktails at Israeli soldiers during the Palestinian intifadas.
       Hmidan challenges the immigration judge’s decisions to limit ex-
       pert testimony about his subjective intent and to exclude his ex-
       pert’s second addendum. We deny the petition.
              We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Jeune v.
       U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). Although we lack
       jurisdiction to review the denial of discretionary relief, 8 U.S.C.
       §§ 1182, 1252(a)(2)(B), we have jurisdiction to review constitu-
       tional claims and questions of law, id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Patel v. Gar-
       land, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1623, 1627 (2022).
               Applicants for adjustment of status bear the burden of prov-
       ing that they satisfy the requirements for eligibility and merit a fa-
       vorable exercise of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A). One eligi-
       bility requirement is that the applicant must be admissible. Id.
       § 1255(a). A noncitizen who “has engaged in a terrorist activity” is
       inadmissible. Id. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I). “Terrorist activity” is defined
       as any activity that is unlawful “under the laws of the place where
       it is committed” and includes the use of any “explosive, firearm, or
       other weapon or dangerous device . . . with intent to endanger,
USCA11 Case: 22-14275      Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 10/24/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14275

       directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to
       cause substantial damage to property.” Id. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V)(b).
               An immigration judge has the authority to “receive evi-
       dence[] and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine” the nonciti-
       zen and witnesses during removal proceedings. Id. § 1229a(b)(1).
       The regulations provide that “immigration judges shall exercise
       their independent judgment and discretion and may take any ac-
       tion consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations
       that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition” of the cases
       before them. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). Immigration judges have
       “broad discretion to admit and consider relevant and probative ev-
       idence,” including witness testimony. Matter of D-R-, 25 I. & N.
       Dec. 445, 458 (BIA 2011); Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 97, 101–
       02 (BIA 2020) (“Expert testimony in immigration proceedings is rel-
       evant if it will help the Immigration Judge understand the evidence
       or decide a fact in issue.”).
              Hmidan argues that the immigration judge erred by limiting
       the scope of his expert witness, Dr. Shaul Gabbay, but we disagree.
       The immigration judge acted within her broad discretion by limit-
       ing the scope of Dr. Gabbay’s testimony to matters within his ex-
       pertise and personal knowledge. See Matter of D-R-, 25 I. & N. Dec.
       at 458. Hmidan admitted to throwing stones and Molotov cocktails
       during the second intifada but insisted that he never intended to
       harm Israeli soldiers. At Hmidan’s first hearing, Dr. Gabbay, a pro-
       fessor of Middle Eastern studies, testified that Hmidan’s actions
       were not acts of terrorism because they were part of the greater
USCA11 Case: 22-14275     Document: 32-1     Date Filed: 10/24/2023   Page: 5 of 6

       22-14275              Opinion of the Court                       5

       struggle for self-determination. But Dr. Gabbay acknowledged that
       he never met Hmidan before the hearing and did not interview him
       before writing his expert report. Dr. Gabbay also acknowledged
       that only Hmidan could testify about his intent. The immigration
       judge found that Dr. Gabbay could not testify about Hmidan’s ac-
       tions or intent.
              Although the immigration judge granted Hmidan a contin-
       uance to find another expert witness, Hmidan instead sought to
       present more testimony from Dr. Gabbay at his final hearing. He
       explained that Dr. Gabbay had since traveled to Israel on vacation
       and interviewed Israeli soldiers allegedly present during the inci-
       dents. Dr. Gabbay admitted that his interviews were not con-
       ducted using his usual research methods and stated that he could
       not reveal the soldiers’ identities. Because the issue of Hmidan’s
       subjective intent was outside of Dr. Gabbay’s area of expertise and
       his interviews were unreliable, the immigration judge did not
       abuse her discretion by excluding Dr. Gabbay’s testimony. See id.
              Hmidan argues that the immigration judge erred by exclud-
       ing as untimely Dr. Gabbay’s second addendum to his expert re-
       port, but it was Dr. Gabbay’s first addendum, not his second, that
       the immigration judge excluded as untimely. Hmidan submitted
       the second addendum after the final hearing. The second adden-
       dum, which was nearly identical to the first, contained Dr. Gab-
       bay’s statement that he stood by his analysis, as well as five new
       photographs of an October 2000 protest site that he took during his
       2016 vacation. The immigration judge found that “the documents
USCA11 Case: 22-14275      Document: 32-1       Date Filed: 10/24/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-14275

       provide context[, but] nothing in them indicates that [Hmidan] was
       not engaged in terrorist activity.” The Board construed this state-
       ment to mean that the immigration judge decided “not to admit”
       the second addendum based on her weighing of the evidence.
              The immigration judge did not abuse her broad discretion.
       See Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 102; Matter of D-R-, 25 I. & N.
       Dec. at 458. Dr. Gabbay acknowledged that he did not rely on his
       usual research methods. And his photographs of a single protest
       location, taken more than a decade after the second intifada, were
       not probative of the issue of Hmidan’s subjective intent.
              We DENY Hmidan’s petition for review.