Luis Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch
670 F. App'x 860
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Luiz Edgardo Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, appealed the BIA’s final order of removal pro se, challenging removability and denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Sanchez admitted he entered the United States without inspection; the government charged removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i) based on lack of valid entry documents.
- The BIA and IJ found Sanchez not credible based on demeanor, implausibility, and inconsistencies, and noted lack of corroborating evidence.
- The adverse credibility finding under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) was dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT claims; the BIA concluded Sanchez failed to show a well-founded fear, clear probability of persecution, or likelihood of torture.
- Sanchez requested a continuance of his individual removal hearing; the IJ denied it, and the court reviewed that denial for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Sanchez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability for entry without inspection | He challenged being found removable | He lacked valid entry documents at constructive application for admission | Removability affirmed: admission without inspection makes him an "applicant for admission" and inadmissible under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i) |
| Admissibility of adverse credibility finding | Credibility ruling improper / evidence sufficient | Credibility properly assessed (demeanor, implausibility, inconsistencies) and lack of corroboration | BIA credibility finding upheld under substantial-evidence review; it supported denial of relief |
| Asylum / withholding of removal merits | Claimed fear/persecution warrant relief | Insufficient credible or corroborating evidence to establish fear or probability of persecution | Relief denied for asylum and withholding due to adverse credibility and no corroboration |
| CAT relief | Argued risk of torture if returned | Adverse credibility undermines factual basis for CAT claim | CAT relief denied; adverse credibility may be relied upon when it pertains to facts underlying CAT claim |
| Continuance of hearing | Requested additional time before individual hearing | IJ had no abuse of discretion in denying further continuance after ample prior time | Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; court reviewed and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review: BIA legal rulings de novo unless Chevron deference applies; facts reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2015) (alien present without admission is deemed an applicant for admission)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (standards for reviewing adverse credibility findings)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2005) (adverse credibility finding plus lack of corroboration defeats relief)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (credibility findings relevant to CAT claims may justify denial)
- Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) (review of IJ decisions only insofar as they influenced BIA determinations)
- Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2006) (court has jurisdiction to review IJ denial of continuance)
- Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2006) (continuance for good cause reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for continuance/abuse of discretion)