IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60826

Summary Calendar

LUIS EDGARDO SANCHEZ,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 454 390

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luiz Edgardo Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, pro se 

petitions for review of the final order of removal of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA). He raises procedural and substantive challenges to the BIA’s 

denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration 

& Nationality Act, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60826 Document: 00513768212 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 15-60826

2

We review the BIA’s rulings of law de novo unless a ruling involves an 

ambiguous provision of the immigration statute, in which case the BIA’s legal 

conclusion is entitled to Chevron1 deference. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 

F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). This court reviews findings of fact for substantial 

evidence. Id. at 517-18. Our review will only consider the underlying decision 

of the immigration judge (IJ) insofar as it influenced the determination of the 

BIA. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009).

Even liberally construing Sanchez’s pro se arguments, we reject his 

contention that he was improperly found removable. The BIA correctly 

determined Sanchez’s removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i), which 

makes inadmissible any immigrant who is not in possession of valid entry 

documents “at the time of application for admission.” The immigration statute 

provides that an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted 

“shall be deemed” an “applicant for admission,” constructively placing at the 

border an alien who previously entered without inspection. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1225(a)(1); Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 2015). Sanchez’s 

testimonial admissions about his entry without inspection establish that he 

lacked proper entry documents at the time of his constructive application for 

admission. He is properly removable as charged in the Notice to Appear. 

Turning to relief from removal, substantial evidence supports the denial 

of Sanchez’s claims for relief on the basis that he did not present sufficient 

credible evidence. We must defer to the BIA’s credibility reasoning here 

because it is not “plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an 

adverse credibility ruling.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537-38 (5th Cir. 

2009). Specifically, the BIA affirmed the adverse credibility factors properly 

identified by the IJ, including demeanor, implausibility, and inconsistencies. 

 

1 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

 Case: 15-60826 Document: 00513768212 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 15-60826

3

These factors, as assessed, were proper for an adverse credibility 

determination “under the totality of the circumstances, without regard to 

whether any inconsistency goes to the heart of the asylum applicant’s claim.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This adverse credibility finding, together with a 

lack of corroborating evidence, is fatal to Sanchez’s claims for relief. See Zhang 

v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2005). Sanchez has not established a 

well-founded fear of persecution, a clear probability of persecution, or a

likelihood of torture. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002) 

(holding that where the adverse credibility finding is pertinent to the facts 

forming the basis of the CAT claim, it is proper to rely on credibility in denial 

of CAT relief). 

Lastly, Sanchez was not entitled to a continuance of his individual 

removal hearing. We have jurisdiction to review an IJ’s denial of a 

continuance. Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006). An IJ may 

grant a continuance for “good cause,” which is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir. 2006); Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549, 

555-56 (5th Cir. 1997). Here, ample time passed between Sanchez’s initial 

master calendar and his individual hearing, and there was no abuse of 

discretion in the IJ’s refusal to further delay proceedings. 

PETITION DENIED. 

 Case: 15-60826 Document: 00513768212 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/21/2016