Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingtestimonyburden of proofcredibility
hearingtestimonyburden of proofparolecredibility

Related Cases

Berroteran-Melendez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Xue Su Wang v. Holder
View Case »
Al-Mousa v. Mukasey
View Case »
Pojoy-De Leon v. Barr
View Case »
Melendez v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder

Facts

Sanchez-Velasco is a native and citizen of Mexico who was charged with removability as an inadmissible alien. He conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal, claiming he had been continuously physically present in the U.S. since December 1996. At a hearing, he testified about his entry and residence in the U.S., but the IJ noted that his school records only established his presence from March 1998. The IJ found that corroborative testimony from Sanchez-Velasco's parents was reasonably available but unused, as they feared removal proceedings.

Sanchez-Velasco is a native and citizen of Mexico who was charged on October 26, 2007 with removability as an inadmissible alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(I). He conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal under 1229b(b)(1)(A), which required him to prove that he had been continuously physically present in the country since at least October 26, 1997. At a master calendar hearing before the IJ, Sanchez-Velasco testified that he, his sister, and his mother had entered the United States without admission or parole on or about December 17, 1996. They resided in California for approximately six months before moving to Illinois, where he attended elementary, junior high, and high school. He submitted school records which indicated that he had attended an elementary school in Collinsville, Illinois from March 5, 1998 through 2000 and that he had attended junior high school there in 2001. He also testified that although his parents lived in Illinois and could attest to his 1996 entry, they refused to testify for fear of being subjected to removal proceedings.

Issue

Did the IJ err in requiring corroborative evidence for Sanchez-Velasco's testimony regarding his continuous physical presence in the U.S. for ten years?

Did the IJ err in requiring corroborative evidence for Sanchez-Velasco's testimony regarding his continuous physical presence in the U.S. for ten years?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(B), the IJ has discretion to require an alien to corroborate otherwise credible testimony with reasonably available evidence.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(B), the IJ has discretion to require an alien to corroborate otherwise credible testimony with reasonably available evidence.

Analysis

The court found that the IJ acted within his discretion by requiring corroborative evidence from Sanchez-Velasco's parents, who could have testified but chose not to due to fear of removal. The IJ did not make an adverse credibility determination but noted that the evidence presented did not compel a different conclusion. The court upheld the IJ's finding that Sanchez-Velasco failed to prove the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence.

The court found that the IJ acted within his discretion by requiring corroborative evidence from Sanchez-Velasco's parents, who could have testified but chose not to due to fear of removal. The IJ did not make an adverse credibility determination but noted that the evidence presented did not compel a different conclusion.

Conclusion

The court denied Sanchez-Velasco's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision.

The court denied Sanchez-Velasco's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the IJ's decision that Sanchez-Velasco did not meet the burden of proof for cancellation of removal.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the IJ's decision that Sanchez-Velasco did not meet the burden of proof for cancellation of removal.

You must be