Unpublished Disposition, 845 F.2d 1029 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Pedro Espinoza-Muruato and Maria Araiza de Espinoza (Espinozas or Petitioners) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying them suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), and we deny the petition.

Petitioners are Mexican citizens who entered this country without inspection in 1975. In May 1984 an immigration judge found Petitioners deportable and granted them the privilege of voluntary departure. He also denied them a suspension of deportation on the ground that Mr. Espinoza had failed to establish good moral character, citing irregularities in his income tax returns, and because both Petitioners had failed to demonstrate that their expulsion would cause their family extreme hardship. The BIA affirmed on the latter ground and dismissed their appeal. The only question before us is whether the BIA abused its discretion, and we answer that in the negative.

Petitioners contend the BIA failed to consider the totality of their circumstances as required in adjudicating their claim of extreme hardship. The essence of their argument, however, is reargument that they have shown extreme hardship because (1) they would have difficulty in obtaining employment, (2) they, and especially their children, would find it difficult to adjust to Mexican life, (3) the children would suffer from reduced educational opportunities, and (4) their asthmatic child would be endangered by the lower quality of medical treatment available in Mexico.

The petition must fail. We must accord wide discretion to the BIA in determining whether an alien has demonstrated extreme hardship. Sullivan v. INS, 772 F.2d 609, 610 (9th Cir. 1985). The BIA articulated its reasoning, considering and rejecting Petitioner's arguments, "both individually and in the aggregate." We cannot say that its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Kashefi-Zihagh v. INS, 791 F.2d 708, 709 (9th Cir. 1986). Finding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying suspension of deportation, we AFFIRM.