The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review on June 8, 2026, brought by Woff Senatus, a former lawful permanent resident who was deported to Haiti following a 2021 felony conviction in Florida.
Senatus challenged a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that refused to reopen his case. He argued that his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon did not fit the legal definition of an “aggravated felony” or a “crime of violence” required for deportation under federal law.
A three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Robin S. Rosenbaum, Britt C. Grant, and Elizabeth L. Branch rejected the argument, ruling that binding legal precedent foreclosed his claims.
Senatus, a native and citizen of Haiti, obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United States in 2002. In 2021, he was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and received a sentence of 14 months in prison and three years of probation. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony—defined in part as a “crime of violence” carrying a prison term of at least one year—is subject to deportation.
During his initial removal proceedings, Senatus conceded his removability through counsel and applied for asylum and withholding of removal. The Immigration Judge denied the applications, and the BIA subsequently affirmed the deportation order. Senatus was removed to Haiti in approximately June 2023.
While his deportation was pending, Senatus filed a motion to reopen his proceedings, claiming his original attorney provided ineffective assistance. He argued that the Florida aggravated assault statute allowed for convictions based on mere recklessness, whereas federal immigration law requires a higher mental state of intent for an offense to be classified as a crime of violence. The BIA denied the motion on January 11, 2024, finding that his arguments lacked legal merit and that he suffered no prejudice from his counsel’s performance.
In the federal appeal, the Eleventh Circuit examined whether the Florida offense matched the generic federal definition of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16. Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Branch noted that the generic federal definition excludes offenses committed with a mental state of mere recklessness.
Senatus pointed to prior Florida intermediate appellate court rulings, including the 1989 case Kelly v. State, which suggested a defendant could be convicted of aggravated assault through culpable negligence or reckless disregard. He argued that because Florida law allowed for a recklessness standard at the time of his 2021 conviction, his offense should not categorically match the stricter federal definition.
However, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that its own recent precedent in Somers v. United States settled the issue. In that litigation, the Eleventh Circuit had certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the exact mental state required for the state’s aggravated assault statute. The Florida Supreme Court responded that the offense cannot be committed via a reckless act and requires “at least knowing conduct.”
Based on that clarification, the Eleventh Circuit had previously held that Florida aggravated assault categorically qualifies as a violent offense. In the ruling against Senatus, the court emphasized that when the Florida Supreme Court interprets a state law, it establishes what that statute has always meant, overriding any conflicting historical decisions from lower state courts.
Senatus urged the panel to follow a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Anderson (2024), which looked at the same Florida statute but concluded there was a realistic probability that Florida courts punished reckless conduct prior to the state supreme court’s clarification. The Eleventh Circuit declined to follow the Seventh Circuit’s approach, stating it was strictly bound by its own prior panel decisions.
“Our caselaw instructs that aggravated assault pursuant to Florida Statute § 784.021(1)(a) qualifies as a violent felony, making Senatus’s removal proper,” Branch wrote. The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion and denied the petition for review.
READ: Florida Troopers Hunt For Driver In 2025 Fatal Hit-And-Run Crash That Killed Zephyrhills Man
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
