Perez v. I.N.S., 95-70307
| Decision Date | 16 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-70307,95-70307 |
| Citation | 96 F.3d 390 |
| Parties | 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6898, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,338 Gad PEREZ; Tifferet Perez, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jose A. Bracamonte, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioners.
John L. Davis, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS Nos. A70-131-792, A70-131-793.
Before: SNEED, JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr. and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Gad and Tifferet Perez seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of their application for suspension of deportation. The BIA held that the Perezes and their son, a United States citizen, failed to establish that they would suffer "extreme hardship" upon deportation to Israel. The Perezes filed a timely petition for review pursuant to section 106(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(1). We agree with the BIA that the Perezes failed to show extreme hardship and deny their petition for review.
In May 1984, Gad and Tifferet Perez, husband and wife, left their home in Israel and entered the United States under visitor visas valid until July 25 of that year. On July 1, Tifferet Perez gave birth to a son, Avi Perez, in Kansas. The Perez family remained in Kansas for three years and then moved to Arizona, where the family currently resides. Gad Perez works as a house painter, Tifferet Perez is a child care provider, and Avi Perez, now twelve, attends school.
Deportation proceedings were commenced against Gad and Tifferet Perez. They admitted deportability, but requested suspension of deportation on the ground of extreme hardship pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1). To support this claim, the Perezes argued that their son will face adjustment problems if he accompanies them to Israel. Avi will have to learn to read and write Hebrew, of which he has some aural understanding but in which he is illiterate. Avi will also have to adopt to a new culture, new friends, new foods, and new schools. A school psychologist from Avi's elementary school wrote a supporting letter which concluded that, due to "environmental differences" between the United States and Israel, a move would "cause serious adjustment difficulties" for Avi.
Gad and Tifferet Perez argued that they will have difficulty obtaining good jobs and face religious discrimination due to their practice of Messianic Judaism (which posits that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah of whom the Old Testament foretold). The entire family will be threatened, they argued, by terrorism in Israel.
When asked if they would leave Avi behind if they were forced to return to Israel, Tifferet Perez testified that she and her husband had "never talked about it." She further testified that she wanted Avi to remain here, but that they "will have to think a lot about it before we would decide" whether to leave Avi behind.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) suspended deportation but the BIA, after considering the cumulative hardships posed by deportation, reversed and denied the petition for suspension. With regard to the possibility of family separation, the BIA held that there was insufficient evidence of legitimate arrangements to leave Avi in this country and that, in any event, any hardship from separation "was the result of parental choice, and not his parent's deportation." This petition for review followed.
Where, as here, the BIA conducts an independent review of the IJ's findings, we review the BIA's decision and not that of the IJ. Yepes-Prado v. U.S. INS, 10 F.3d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir.1993). The BIA's decision not to suspend deportation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Robledo v. INS, 777 F.2d 536, 541-42 (9th Cir.1985). The BIA is required to "state its reasons and show proper consideration of all factors." Hassan v. INS, 927 F.2d 465, 467 (9th Cir.1991) (internal quotations omitted).
Section 244(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1), vests the Attorney General (in this case, the BIA) with discretion to suspend the deportation of an alien who has been physically present in the United States for at least seven years, has good moral character, and would face extreme hardship to himself or his citizen spouse or child. The BIA held for the Perezes on the first two requirements, unchallenged on appeal, but found no extreme hardship.
"Extreme hardship" is hardship that is "unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected" upon deportation. Hassan, 927 F.2d at 468. "The common results of deportation or exclusion are insufficient to prove extreme hardship." Id.
The Perezes argue that the aggregate force of their hardships upon deportation requires a finding of extreme hardship as a matter of law. With regard to their son, they identify the following hardships: "adjustment to a new language, culture, geography, cuisine, friends, pedagogical methods and school structure, climate, and a host of other factors." With regard to themselves, the Perezes contend they will face economic hardship due to Israel's economy, alleged religious intolerance, and the threat of terrorism.
The BIA correctly determined that the Perezes failed to establish unusual or extreme hardship. The hardships faced by their citizen child with regard to adjusting to a new language, culture and educational environment are what would normally be expected with any child accompanying a deported alien to a foreign country. The supporting letter from the school psychologist warning of "adjustment difficulties" does not persuade us otherwise; it offers no suggestion that Avi is unusual or that the difficulties he would face are any different in kind or degree from any other child in his position.
Nor are the economic hardships to be faced by the Perezes upon return to Israel--a potentially lower standard of living and fewer job opportunities--beyond that one would normally expect whenever an alien is deported to a country with a less vibrant economy than the United States. See Ramirez-Durazo v. INS, 794 F.2d 491, 498 (9th Cir.1986) ().
Although the Perezes claim to fear religious persecution upon return to Israel, the record contains no evidence to suggest they will, in fact, face such hardship. 1
The calculus is not significantly changed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cervantes-Gonzalez
...We find this to undermine the respondent's argument that his wife will suffer extreme hardship if he is deported. See Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that "`[e]xtreme hardship' is hardship that is `unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected' upon deporta......
-
Agyeman v. I.N.S.
...such as a potentially lower standard of living and fewer job opportunities, are insufficient to prove extreme hardship. Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1996). 3. Majority at 4. Majority at 881. 5. 208 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.2000). 6. Majority at 884. 7. 208 F.3d at 734. 8. United States ......
-
In re Cervantes-Gonzalez
...We find this to undermine the respondent's argument that his wife will suffer extreme hardship if he is deported. See Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that "`[e]xtreme hardship' is hardship that is `unusual or beyond that which would normally be expected' upon deporta......
-
Iturribarria v. I.N.S.
...hardships described by the letters presented by petitioner are not "extreme" for the purposes of § 244 relief. See Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 392-93(9th Cir.1996) (adjustment difficulties experienced by U.S. citizen children accompanying an alien deported to a foreign country and family's p......