The Third Circuit has determined that the agency erred in denying a continuance to an applicant for cancellation of removal who wished to present additional lay and expert testimony regarding hardship to his children. “Here, the IJ rested his denial of the continuance on an assumption that witness testimony would be unnecessary and then faulted Martinez for perceived gaps in the record that those witnesses likely would have been able to fill. In the circumstances presented, we conclude that Martinez has demonstrated that the IJ’s decision fell outside the range of permissible decisions, as did the BIA’s decision endorsing that decision.”
The full text of Martinez Roman v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/12ae7ed4-81e2-4349-a906-0050d41df79e/7/doc/20-3476_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/12ae7ed4-81e2-4349-a906-0050d41df79e/7/hilite/