Guadarrama-Rogel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
| Citation | 638 F.2d 1228 |
| Decision Date | 05 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | P,GUADARRAMA-ROGE,No. 80-7072,80-7072 |
| Parties | J. Carmenetitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Frederick Hetter, San Diego, Cal., for petitioner.
Frank O. Bowman, III, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., argued for respondent; Gregory C. Weiss, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Before CHAMBERS and ALARCON, Circuit Judges and LARSON, * District Judge.
J. Carmen Guadarrama-Rogel seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for suspension of deportation. We affirm.
Guadarrama-Rogel is a 45 year old native and citizen of Mexico. In 1962 he married another native and citizen of Mexico. There are four children from this marriage all of whom were born in and continue to live in Mexico. The last child was born in 1971.
In 1968 Guadarrama-Rogel entered the United States as a permanent resident on the basis of a second marriage. His putative spouse was a permanent resident. In deportation hearings instituted in 1973, Guadarrama-Rogel was ordered deported because the second marriage was a fraud, there being no valid dissolution of the first marriage. Guadarrama-Rogel seeks a suspension of deportation.
Guadarrama-Rogel lives with his parents, who are permanent residents of the United States. His father is approximately 60 years old; his mother is approximately 54. They are dependent on Guadarrama-Rogel for a portion of their economic support and emotional support. Neither parent speaks English.
Guadarrama-Rogel is employed as a foreman on a ranch. If he were deported to Mexico, his employment opportunities would decrease, making it difficult for him to share income with his parents, and support his four children in Mexico. After considering all the circumstances raised by Guadarrama-Rogel, the immigration judge (IJ) found that Guadarrama-Rogel did not qualify for suspension of deportation because he failed to satisfy the "extreme hardship" requirement. The BIA affirmed.
Under 8 U.S.C. section 1254(a) (1970), the Attorney General has the discretion to suspend the deportation of any alien who satisfies certain statutory prerequisites. Aliens such as Guadarrama-Rogel, who are found deportable as being excludable at time of entry, will be statutorily eligible for suspension of deportation if: (1) they have been continuously present in the United States for at least seven years immediately preceding the date of their application; (2) during that period they were of good moral character; and (3) in the opinion of the Attorney General, deportation would "result in extreme hardship to the alien, or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence." 8 U.S.C. section 1254(a)(1) (1970).
Guadarrama-Rogel argues that the BIA must grant suspension of deportation unless clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence has been presented in support of denying the application. He relies on Woodby v. I & NS, 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966), for this proposition. His reading of the law is erroneous. Woodby holds only that deportability must be shown by this standard. Id. at 285-86, 87 S.Ct. at 487-88. Here, deportability is conceded and only suspension of deportation is contended. In a suspension case the burden is on the alien to demonstrate statutory eligibility and that the equities merit favorable exercise of discretion. 8 C.F.R. section 242.17(d) (1980); Villena v. I & NS, 622 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc).
Guadarrama-Rogel was held to be statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation for failure to satisfy the extreme hardship requirement. 1 He claims this finding is in error.
Extreme hardship is a discretionary determination, and the administrative determination is reviewable by this court only for abuse of discretion. We held, in Wang v. I & NS, 622 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc), and Villena v. I & NS, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc), that discretion is abused if the IJ and BIA do not consider all relevant factors. A review of the record in this case shows that all relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. I.N.S.
...of aliens from members of their families, see, e.g., Amezquita-Soto v. INS, 708 F.2d 898, 902 (3d Cir.1983); Guadarrama-Rogel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1228, 1230 (9th Cir.1981); Banks v. INS, 594 F.2d 760, 763 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Noel v. Chapman, 508 F.2d 1023, 1027-28 (2d Cir.), cert. den......
-
Ramos v. I.N.S.
...[petitioners] may encounter some difficulty in obtaining similar employment for similar pay in the Philippines. See Guadarrama-Rogel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir.1981). Any economic detriment caused by their deportation, however, in and of itself is insufficient to support the statutory r......
-
Rivera v. I.N.S.
...it was noted that at the time of the hearing, Rivera was only thirty-one years old and in good health. See Guadarrama-Rogel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1228, 1230 (9th Cir.1981). He was not involved in any community activities, and Spanish remained his primary language. See Carnalla-Munoz v. INS, 627 ......
-
Gomez-Rosales v. I.N.S.
...noted that petitioners were only thirty years old and twenty-four years old, respectively, and in good health. See Guadarrama-Rogel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1228, 1230 (9th Cir.1981). Because petitioners have not been actively involved in community activities and Spanish remained their primary lang......