Delgado-Victorio v. GarlandDelgado-Victorio v. Garland
Before DAVIS, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:
Yemiel Delgado-Victorio, a native and citizen of Mexico, was ordered removed based on a Texas conviction for aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon. Delgado-Victorio now petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals determining his removability and denying his request for continuance. We hold that aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon under Texas law is a crime of violence and thus an aggravated felony for purposes of federal immigration law. We accordingly deny the petition for review.
* * *
We review the immigration judge‘s decision to the extent it influenced the Board. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). We review legal
Aliens become removable when they are convicted of an “aggravated felony.”
The Board, relying on the immigration judge, correctly concluded that Delgado-Victorio‘s offense constituted an aggravated felony.1 Aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon under Texas law is clearly a crime of violence. To be convicted, an individual must “intentionally or knowingly” cause unwanted sexual penetration or contact and “use[] or exhibit[] a deadly weapon” while doing so.
utilized in order to achieve its purpose. . . . ‘[E]xhibited a deadly weapon’ means that the weapon was consciously shown or displayed during the commission of the offense.“) (some omissions in original). See also McCain v. State, 22 S.W. 3d 497, 502 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 2000) (en banc) (“a person ‘uses or exhibits a deadly weapon’ . . . if he employs the weapon in any manner that ‘facilitates the associated felony.‘“). The Texas offense thus requires the use or attempted use of physical force, qualifying it as an aggravated felony.
Delgado-Victorio‘s challenge to the Board‘s denial of his motion for continuance also lacks merit. Delgado-Victorio asserts that the Board abused its discretion by affirming the immigration judge‘s conclusion that he lacked “good cause” for a continuance. But immigration judges may consider a wide range of factors when determining whether good cause exists. See Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405, 413, 415 (Att‘y Gen. 2018). The immigration judge cited a number of factors, including Delgado-Victorio‘s criminal history. We therefore decline to find an abuse of discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Delgado-Victorio‘s petition for review.