Case: 19-60122 Document: 00515521666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 10, 2020 No. 19-60122 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jesus Eduardo Soto-Gomez, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 683 419 Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jesus Eduardo Soto-Gomez petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) who denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60122 Document: 00515521666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2020 No. 19-60122 generally review only the decision of the BIA and consider the underlying IJ decision only if it influenced the BIA’s determination. See Masih v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2008). We review the factual findings of an immigration court for substantial evidence and consider legal questions under the de novo standard. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). The BIA’s factual findings are conclusive unless the record compels a contrary finding. Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). First, Soto-Gomez contends that the IJ deprived him of due process by denying his request to continue the merits hearing so that he could hire a new attorney and obtain documents to support his asylum application. The record shows, however, that Soto-Gomez had 11 months between his prior appearance before the IJ and the merits hearing and that his former attorney had withdrawn from the case because Soto-Gomez failed to provide the lawyer with requested documentation. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding Soto-Gomez did not show good cause for the requested continuance. Masih, 536 F.3d at 373 (5th Cir. 2008). Moreover, Soto-Gomez has not established that the denial of a continuance caused “actual prejudice” or “materially affected the outcome of his case.” In re Sibrun, 18 I. & N. Dec. 354, 356–57 (BIA 1983). In addition, Soto-Gomez maintains that the BIA erred in concluding that he was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. Asylum may be granted to “an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to his home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the BIA determined that Soto-Gomez had proved past persecution on account of an imputed political opinion, it recognized a rebuttable presumption that his life or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals