Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    De Nogal v. INS, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a deportation order by the Board of Immigration Appeals against Delfina Ortiz de Nogal, a citizen of Mexico. The order summarizes that Ms. Ortiz de Nogal entered the U.S. illegally in 1986 and conceded deportability but requested suspension of deportation, which requires a showing of extreme hardship. While Ms. Ortiz de Nogal has two U.S. citizen children and family in both the U.S. and Mexico, the court found that deportation would not result in uniquely extreme hardship and upheld the BIA's deportation order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    De Nogal v. INS, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views5 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a deportation order by the Board of Immigration Appeals against Delfina Ortiz de Nogal, a citizen of Mexico. The order summarizes that Ms. Ortiz de Nogal entered the U.S. illegally in 1986 and conceded deportability but requested suspension of deportation, which requires a showing of extreme hardship. While Ms. Ortiz de Nogal has two U.S. citizen children and family in both the U.S. and Mexico, the court found that deportation would not result in uniquely extreme hardship and upheld the BIA's deportation order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-08-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-9540

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a deportation order by the Board of Immigration Appeals against Delfina Ortiz de Nogal, a citizen of Mexico. The order summarizes that Ms. Ortiz de Nogal entered the U.S. illegally in 1986 and conceded deportability but requested suspension of deportation, which requires a showing of extreme hardship. While Ms. Ortiz de Nogal has two U.S. citizen children and family in both the U.S. and Mexico, the court found that deportation would not result in uniquely extreme hardship and upheld the BIA's deportation order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    22 views5 pages

    De Nogal v. INS, 10th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a deportation order by the Board of Immigration Appeals against Delfina Ortiz de Nogal, a citizen of Mexico. The order summarizes that Ms. Ortiz de Nogal entered the U.S. illegally in 1986 and conceded deportability but requested suspension of deportation, which requires a showing of extreme hardship. While Ms. Ortiz de Nogal has two U.S. citizen children and family in both the U.S. and Mexico, the court found that deportation would not result in uniquely extreme hardship and upheld the BIA's deportation order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    AUG 1 1997

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    DELFINA ORTIZ DE NOGAL,


    Petitioner,
    v.
    IMMIGRATION &
    NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

    No. 96-9540
    (Petition for Review)
    (INS No. A73 371 714)

    Respondent.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

    Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    Petitioner Delfina Ortiz de Nogal petitions this court for review of a final
    order of deportation by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We have
    jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a). 1 Because petitioner has not shown that
    the BIA abused its discretion in finding that her deportation would not amount to
    extreme hardship, we affirm the order, and deny the petition for review.
    Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered this country illegally in 1986, when
    she was eighteen years old. She is married to a Mexican citizen. At the time of
    the hearing, her two American-born children were ages five and three. She and
    her husband both work and own a trailer free of encumbrances. Petitioner is
    active in her church, and performs volunteer work for the church. Petitioner has
    family in both the United States and Mexico -- two brothers and several uncles
    and cousins live in this country, and her mother and three sisters live in Mexico.

    The Board of Immigration Appeals issued its final order of deportation on


    September 30, 1996. On the same day, the Illegal Immigration Reform and
    Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.
    3009, was enacted, altering the availability, scope, and nature of judicial review
    in immigration cases. Because petitioners deportation proceedings commenced
    before April 1, 1997, and because the final decision of the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service issued before October 31, 1996, neither IIRIRAs
    permanent new rules, nor its interim transitional rules apply to this case. See
    id. 306(c)(1), 309(a), (c)(1) & (4), as amended by Pub. L. No. 104-302, 2,
    110 Stat. 3657, set out in notes to 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1252. We therefore apply
    pre-IIRIRA standards.
    1

    -2-

    In August 1994, deportation proceedings were initiated against petitioner.


    She conceded deportability, but requested suspension of deportation under section
    244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section, prior to its repeal
    by IIRIRA, gave the Attorney General discretion to suspend deportation and admit
    for permanent residence an alien who: (1) had been physically present in the
    United States for at least seven years; (2) was a person of good moral character;
    and (3) was a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney
    General, 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. 1254(a)(1) (1996) (now repealed by IIRIRA). After a
    hearing, the immigration judge found that petitioner failed to demonstrate her
    deportation would result in extreme hardship to herself, her spouse, or her
    children. The BIA affirmed, and this petition followed.
    We review the Boards determination regarding extreme hardship for an
    abuse of discretion. See Luna-Rodriguez v. INS, 104 F.3d 313, 315 (10th Cir.
    1997). The following nonexclusive factors are relevant to the determination of
    extreme hardship: the aliens age; the length of [her] residence in the United
    States; [her] family ties in the United States and abroad; [her] health; the
    economic and political conditions in the country to which [she] may be returned;
    [her] financial status, business, or occupation; the possibility of other means of
    -3-

    adjustment of status; [her] immigration history; and [her] position in the


    community. Id. (quotations omitted). The BIAs decision will be reversed as an
    abuse of discretion only where the hardship is uniquely extreme, at or closely
    approaching the outer limits of the most severe hardship the alien could suffer
    and so severe that any reasonable person would necessarily conclude that the
    hardship is extreme. Id. (quotations omitted).
    Petitioner has not demonstrated this degree of hardship. The record shows
    that she is young and healthy; that she lived in Mexico until adulthood; that she
    has close family ties in Mexico; that her husband is a Mexican citizen; and that
    her children speak Spanish and are young enough to adjust to a new culture.
    Although deportation will cause petitioner and her family economic hardship, this
    factor alone does not establish extreme hardship, when considered in
    combination with the other factors listed above. See id. (holding that the inability
    to find work, without more, does not establish BIA abused discretion in finding
    no extreme hardship, and noting that [i]t is only when other factors such as
    advanced age, severe illness, family ties, etc. combine with economic detriment to
    make deportation extremely hard on the alien or the citizen or permanent resident
    members of [her] family that Congress has authorized suspension of the
    deportation order) (quotations omitted).

    -4-

    The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is AFFIRMED, and the


    petition for review is DENIED.

    Entered for the Court

    Wade Brorby
    Circuit Judge

    -5-

    You might also like