Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Rafael Gomez-martinez, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent
Summary Calendar.* United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 593 F.2d 10
April 11, 1979
David T. Lopez, Atty., Houston, Tex., for petitioner.
Griffin B. Bell, Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Philip Wilens, Chief Gov. Reg. & Labor Section, James P. Morris, Eric A. Fisher, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Paul B. O'Neill, Dist. Dir., Immig. & Nat. Serv., Houston, Tex., Troy A. Adams, Jr., Dist. Dir., Immig. & Nat. Ser., New Orleans, La., for other interested parties.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is unquestionably deportable under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2) but seeks to avoid the rigors of such deportation by claiming that he is entitled to the suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(2). The immigration judge found petitioner deportable and denied his application for suspension of deportation but granted him the privilege of voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal from the immigration judge's decision and reinstated the privilege of voluntary departure.
We have before us a petition of review. After an examination of the record, and the briefs of petitioner and respondent, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not discharged his burden of establishing the "extreme hardship" required by § 244(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(1). The decisions under review should be affirmed and the petition for review dismissed.
DISMISSED.