Davidson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
| Decision Date | 11 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2951,76-2951 |
| Citation | 558 F.2d 1361 |
| Parties | Udell Lambert DAVIDSON, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jack T. Price, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant (petitioner).
Brian H. Simpson, Trial Atty., Immigration & Naturalization Service, San Francisco, Cal., William T. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Bernard S. Karmiol, Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, San Pedro, Cal., Richard L. Thornburgh, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Administrative Div., Washington, D. C., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Bernard J. Hornbach, District Director, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee (respondent).
Before BROWNING, KILKENNY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the decision of the immigration judge denying petitioner's application for suspension of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1). 1 Under the terms of section 1254(a)(1), the Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend deportation and adjust the status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence where the alien can prove (1) that he has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years prior to his application, (2) that he is a person of good moral character, and (3) that deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien, or his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Only the existence of "extreme hardship" is an issue in the present case.
Petitioner claims that deportation would impose extreme hardship on him and his citizen children because they would be deported to Belize, British Honduras, a city and country with a lower standard of living than the United States. Petitioner also contends that deportation of him and his wife would constitute de facto deportation of his citizen children and that such deportation of these children is impermissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This court's review is limited to the question of whether the Board has abused its discretion. Hun Chak Sun v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 415 F.2d 791, 792 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied,397 U.S. 908, 90 S.Ct. 905, 25 L.Ed.2d 89 (1970). We have previously held that economic disadvantage alone does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- U.S. v. $244,320.00 in U.S. Currency, 4:03-CV-40019.
-
Chiaramonte v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 824, 96 S.Ct. 37, 46 L.Ed.2d 40 (1975); Lee v. INS, 550 F.2d 554, 556 (9th Cir. 1977); Davidson v. INS, 558 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1977); Acosta v. Gaffney, 558 F.2d 1153 (3d Cir. 1977). Accordingly, under our limited scope of review as to this determination, ......
-
Patel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...denied, 405 U.S. 1030, 92 S.Ct. 1302, 31 L.Ed.2d 488 (1972). See Banks v. INS, 594 F.2d 760, 762 (9th Cir. 1979); Davidson v. INS, 558 F.2d 1361, 1362-63 (9th Cir. 1977). We have previously held that economic disadvantage does not constitute extreme hardship. Davidson v. INS, supra, 558 F.2......
-
Ramirez-Durazo v. I.N.S.
...and environment. These simply are not sufficient. Economic disadvantage alone does not constitute "extreme hardship." Davidson v. INS, 558 F.2d 1361, 1363 (9th Cir.1977). The reduced job opportunities and lower standard of living that the petitioners will face upon deportation to Mexico do ......