NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1343 NELSON C. SALGUERO PALACIOS, AKA, Nelson Salguero Palacios, AKA Nelson Salguero AKA Nelson C. Salgueropalacios, AKA Nelson Salgueropalacios Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (District Court No.: BIA-1: A204-414-207) Immigration Judge: Daniel A. Morris Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 17, 2019 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 14, 2019) O P I N I O N* RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Nelson Salguero Palacios, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his oral motion for a continuance, his petition for statutory withholding of removal, and his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of Salguero Palacios’s requests, we will deny the Petition for Review.1 I.2 Nelson Salguero Palacios entered the United States in December 2003 at the age of fourteen, without admission or parole. In March 2018, the Department of Homeland Security served Salguero Palacios a Notice to Appear, commencing immigration removal proceedings. Salguero Palacios subsequently submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection from removal under the CAT. The IJ set a deadline of August 7 to submit documents, and directed Salguero Palacios to provide a brief by August 20 establishing his eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection. Salguero Palacios did not meet the document deadline or submit the brief. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3). We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal from the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 2 Because we write for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and the procedural posture to date, we set out only what is necessary to explain our decision. 2 At the removal hearing on August 21, 2018, Salguero Palacios’s counsel noted that he had received new documents one week prior but had not submitted them because the August 7 deadline had passed. He also could not provide them to the court at that time, as many remained untranslated. He instead sought a two-week continuance. The Government objected. The IJ declined to grant the motion for a continuance but allowed Salguero Palacios, in his testimony, to testify about why the documents were not submitted at the appropriate time. At the close of the testimony, Salguero Palacios’s counsel again requested the continuance but noted: I have to be honest with the court. The documents that I have . . . mostly corroborate the fact that certain individuals were killed, died as a result of violence, and there’s a newspaper article which actually mentions one of them. I don’t have any documentation in regards to any torture or threat of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals