Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar HERSON OCTAVIUS v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Eleventh Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part Herson Octavius’s petition for review challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision to deny his requests for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of discretionary relief because a petitioner cannot assert a due process violation based on the deprivation of purely discretionary benefits, citing *Ponce Flores v. U.S. Att’y Gen.* and *Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen.*. Regarding Octavius’s claim that the BIA failed to review legal conclusions de novo, the court found the argument contradicted by the BIA’s opinion, which explicitly stated it applied de novo review to issues of law and discretion while reviewing factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. The court further rejected Octavius’s constitutional challenges regarding the delegation of immigration authority to executive officers, the “assembly-line” nature of proceedings, the Appointments Clause status of administrative law judges, and the major questions doctrine, relying on established Eleventh Circuit precedent and Supreme Court rulings such as *Fong Yue Ting v. United States* and *Walmart, Inc. v. Chief Admin. Law Judge*. As a result, the petition for review is denied, and the BIA’s order of deportation to Haiti remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.