Case: 17-60020 Document: 00514285960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60020 December 27, 2017 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOSSELYN MARILI BERMUDEZ-DIAZ; MERARI-SARAI VIGIL- BERMUDEZ, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 848 316 BIA No. A206 848 317 Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Josselyn Marili Bermudez Diaz (Bermudez-Diaz) and her daughter, Merari Sarai Vigil-Bermudez, both natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the immigration judge’s ruling denying Bermudez- Diaz’s motion for a continuance and denying her application for asylum, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-60020 Document: 00514285960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2017 No. 17-60020 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They argue that the immigration judge (IJ) abused her discretion by denying Bermudez-Diaz’s motion for a continuance and that the IJ erred by denying Bermudez-Diaz’s application for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief. On a petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA. Mikael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Generally, this court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for continuance. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006). This court reviews “a decision to grant or deny a continuance for an abuse of discretion.” Masih v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2008). Id. The record in this case does not establish that the IJ’s decision was “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886, 890 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Consequently, the IJ did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a continuance. See Masih, 536 F.3d at 373. This court reviews an immigration court’s findings of fact, including any finding that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under substantial evidence review, this court may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it. Id. The determination that Bermudez-Diaz failed to establish the requisite nexus between any past or future persecution and a statutorily protected 2 Case: 17-60020 Document: 00514285960 Page: 3 Date Filed: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals