Case: 20-60531 Document: 00516201634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 14, 2022 No. 20-60531 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Jose Alejandro Velasquez-Zelaya also known as Jose Velasquez-Celaria, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 550 255 Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jose Alejandro Velasquez-Zelaya is a native and citizen of Honduras. He seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) opinion denying * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60531 Document: 00516201634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2022 No. 20-60531 cancellation of removal and a continuance to pursue a U-visa. The petition for review is denied. Velasquez-Zelaya contends that the BIA engaged in improper fact- finding. The BIA did not engage in fact-finding such as developing a record, gathering new information, or choosing between disputed facts. Cf. Suate- Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir. 2020). The BIA applied the facts to the question of whether good cause existed for a continuance. Cf. Sharan v. Wilkinson, 850 F. App’x 878, 882 (5th Cir. 2021).1 That the BIA looked to different, but undisputed, record facts than the immigration judge does not establish that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding. Next, Velasquez-Zelaya argues that the BIA applied an incorrect standard of review regarding due diligence. Whether an alien employed due diligence is a mixed question of law and fact. See Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068 (2020); Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 772 (5th Cir. 2021). Velasquez-Zelaya did not contest any of the facts that the BIA used in making its due diligence determination. Therefore, the BIA did not err by conducting a de novo review of whether those facts met the legal standard for due diligence. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Lastly, Velasquez-Zelaya argues that the BIA erroneously applied the standard for a continuance when there is a pending application for a U-visa. When considering a motion for a continuance to pursue a U-visa, the relevant factors are: “(1) the DHS’s response to the motion; (2) whether the underlying petition is prima facie approvable; and (3) the reason for the continuance and other procedural matters.” Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I. & N. Dec. 807, 812-13 (BIA 2012). In Matter of L-A-B-R-, the Attorney General 1 Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not precedential but may be persuasive. Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). 2 Case: 20-60531 Document: 00516201634 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2022 No. 20-60531 clarified this standard, stating that an IJ “should assess whether good cause supports” a continuance “by applying a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals