Hughes Milcent v. U.S. Attorney General, 705 F. App'x 888

Petitioner Hughes Milcent appealed the BIA’s affirmation of an IJ order finding him removable based on a Florida aggravated battery conviction and denying withholding of removal and CAT relief.
Milcent argued his Florida conviction did not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under INA § 242(a)(2)(C) and raised due process and adverse-credibility challenges to the IJ’s proceedings.
The BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning in part; this Court reviews the BIA and any IJ reasoning it adopted.
Florida’s aggravated battery statute, Fla. Stat. § 784.045(1), has multiple subsections; the (1)(a) subsection (great bodily harm or deadly weapon) was previously held to categorically involve moral turpitude in Sosa‑Martinez.
The Court applied the modified categorical approach, examined Milcent’s amended information, which showed conviction under § 784.045(1)(a), and concluded jurisdiction is limited by INA § 242(a)(2)(C).
The Court dismissed Milcent’s challenges to adverse-credibility findings, withholding of removal, and CAT relief as factual (nonreviewable) matters, and rejected his due process claim about excluding his father from testifying for lack of prejudice and for not being offered at the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Milcent’s Florida aggravated battery conviction is a CIMT for INA § 242(a)(2)(C)	Milcent: conviction does not qualify as CIMT	Gov: prior Eleventh Circuit precedent and Milcent’s charging document show conviction under (1)(a), a CIMT	Held: conviction qualifies as CIMT; Court bound by precedent and modified categorical approach shows (1)(a) offense
Whether Court has jurisdiction to review removal order	Milcent: challenges to legal errors and discretion warrant review	Gov: jurisdiction barred for removals based on disqualifying crimes except for legal/constitutional questions	Held: Jurisdiction limited by INA § 242(a)(2)(C); Court retains only specified legal/constitutional review; many claims dismissed
Whether adverse credibility and withholding/CAT determinations are reviewable	Milcent: BIA erred on credibility and relief eligibility	Gov: these are factual determinations (nonreviewable)	Held: adverse credibility, withholding eligibility, and CAT factual findings are not reviewable; claims dismissed
Whether denial of father’s testimony violated due process	Milcent: exclusion deprived him of a fair hearing	Gov: father was never offered; no showing of what testimony would add or prejudice	Held: no colorable due process violation shown; exclusion did not violate due process

Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (Eleventh Cir. 2001) (standards for reviewing BIA decisions and IJ reasoning)
Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954 (Eleventh Cir. 2005) (court must inquire sua sponte into subject-matter jurisdiction)
Keungne v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1281 (Eleventh Cir. 2009) (tests for whether statutory limits on review apply)
Sosa‑Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 420 F.3d 1338 (Eleventh Cir. 2005) (Florida § 784.045(1)(a) aggravated battery held categorically a CIMT)
Cano v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 709 F.3d 1052 (Eleventh Cir. 2013) (de novo review of legal question whether conviction is a CIMT)
Jean‑Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 500 F.3d 1315 (Eleventh Cir. 2007) (differentiating reviewable legal questions from nonreviewable factual findings)
Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 547 F.3d 1340 (Eleventh Cir. 2008) (adverse credibility findings are factual and not reviewable)
Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270 (Eleventh Cir. 2009) (due process in removal proceedings and IJ discretion to exclude late evidence)
Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281 (Eleventh Cir. 2007) (must allege at least a colorable constitutional claim to preserve review)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permissible documents for modified categorical approach)