USCA11 Case: 20-10606 Date Filed: 12/18/2020 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10606 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-102-889 EFRAIN GOMEZ VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 18, 2020) Before MARTIN, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-10606 Date Filed: 12/18/2020 Page: 2 of 12 Efrain Gomez Velasquez (“Gomez”) petitions for the review of the order of the Board of Immigrations Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Gomez cancellation of removal pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1). We deny his petition. I. BACKGROUND Gomez is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection in June 1999. In 2012, Gomez was served with a notice to appear, which alleged that he was removable pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for having entered the country without inspection. At an initial hearing, Gomez conceded removability and indicated that he would apply for cancellation of his removal, which he subsequently did. In 2014, Gomez’s wife, Faustina Matias Pablo (“Matias”), also was served with a notice to appear, which contained similar allegations. Their cases were consolidated; Matias also applied for cancellation. At the merits hearing in 2016, Gomez testified he was from Guatemala and had entered the United States without inspection in 1999. He had been married to Matias since 2013; they had been together for around 23 years. He admitted to being arrested four times in the United States; the first arrest, in 2006, involved an argument with Matias, and the charges were dropped. He stated that they had an 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10606 Date Filed: 12/18/2020 Page: 3 of 12 argument and “[s]he became upset, and maybe she thought [he] was going to hit her, and she called the police. But that didn’t happen.” He stated that the police “had to take [him] in because [he] was upset, just to calm down.” That was the only time he was arrested for an issue with his wife, but his wife did not accuse him of physical contact. He was unsure of the ultimate legal disposition of his arrest, but he believed that his wife withdrew the charges. The IJ questioned Gomez, asking why Matias believed that he was going to hit her. He replied that he “honestly [did not] know.” He also stated that he “never hit her.” He said that, if Matias were questioned about the incident, she would confirm that he did not hit her. The government called Matias, who testified that she called the police because she was afraid of Gomez during the argument. He hit her on her face, which was the first time he had done so. Gomez subsequently retook the witness stand and stated, “The truth is -- well, I didn’t hit her hard.” He confirmed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals