Case: 19-60516 Document: 00515934226 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 12, 2021 No. 19-60516 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Luis Aldo Pazos-Toledano, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A209 826 168 Before Jones, Southwick, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Luis Aldo Pazos-Toledano is a native and citizen of Mexico. He petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of relief. The BIA also denied his motion to remand. We DENY the petition in part and DISMISS in part. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60516 Document: 00515934226 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 No. 19-60516 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 31, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security served Pazos-Toledano with a notice to appear, charging that he was removable as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. When Pazos-Toledano appeared before the IJ with counsel, he conceded that he was removable as charged. He then applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). On July 17, 2017, the IJ conducted a merits hearing. After Pazos- Toledano testified, his lawyer withdrew a request to have Pazos-Toledano’s then-current wife testify. None of Pazos-Toledano’s three children testified or provided letters in support of their father. The Government stipulated to Pazos-Toledano’s good moral character during the relevant time period and to the fact that he had not committed any crime that would prevent cancellation of removal. That left only two factors for the IJ to consider in the cancellation-of- removal determination: (1) whether Pazos-Toledano “ha[d] been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application” and (2) whether Pazos- Toledano “establishe[d] that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A), (D). The IJ denied Pazos-Toledano’s application for cancellation of removal on August 7, 2019. The IJ based the decision only on Pazos- Toledano’s failure to present sufficiently credible evidence of 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. The IJ declined to make an adverse-credibility finding but determined that, due to numerous discrepancies in the record, Pazos-Toledano’s testimony was not enough to carry his burden of proof. The IJ further determined that Pazos-Toledano 2 Case: 19-60516 Document: 00515934226 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2021 No. 19-60516 did not sufficiently corroborate his testimony to carry his burden of proving 10 years of continuous physical presence. Considering the record and testimony, the IJ found that physical presence in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals