Chukwudi Joseph Okafor, Petitioner, v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Respondent, 25 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1994)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

Before ANDERSON and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and BELOT,^**  District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Chukwudi Joseph Okafor seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his request for suspension of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1254(a) (1). The only issue before this court is whether the BIA erred in its ruling that petitioner had not demonstrated he would suffer extreme hardship were he deported. That ruling we review only for an abuse of discretion. Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1308 (10th Cir. 1993).

On appeal, petitioner contends that the BIA's ruling was erroneous because the Board 1) failed to consider the relevant factors, 2) made conclusory findings, 3) failed to consider petitioner's specific circumstances, and 4) disregarded evidence of economic hardship that would result if petitioner were returned to Nigeria. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, together with the parties' briefs and the authority cited therein, and conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying suspension of deportation. The immigration judge's opinion, on which the BIA relied, fully and fairly summarizes the evidence presented, and demonstrates consideration of all the relevant factors. The BIA was entitled to rely on the immigration judge's reasoning. See Panrit v. INS, 19 F.3d 544, 546 (10th Cir. 1994).

Petitioner also requests that we reinstate his voluntary departure. This court lacks jurisdiction to consider such a request. See Castaneda v. INS, No. 93-9549, 1994 WL 182840, at * 4 (10th Cir. May 13, 1994).

The petition for review is hereby DENIED.