Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1987)

MEMORANDUM^** 

George Kalogeras, ("Kalogeras") proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, ("BIA") dismissing his appeal of the decision of the Immigration Judge finding him deportable under section 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a) and we deny the petition for review.

The standard of review for a petition for review is whether there is reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record, when viewed as a whole, to support the BIA decision that the INS carried its burden to prove deportability. Hernandez-Robledo v. INS, 777 F.2d 536, 539 (9th Cir. 1985).

Kalogeras, a native of Greece and citizen of Australia, legally entered the United States on November 20, 1986 on a non-immigrant visitor status visa. He was authorized to remain in the U.S. until March 5, 1987. Kalogeras was detained for failing to comply with his non-immigrant status in January of 1987, specifically it was alleged that he was employed for pay. Deportation proceedings commenced on January 29, 1987, pursuant to that charge. An additional charge of overstaying his visa was levied against Kalogeras on March 17, 1987.

On June 17, 1987, petitioner, proceeding pro se, testified at his deportation hearing. He stated that he had not received an extension to his visa. He also testified that he had worked for the Salvation Army and had received a "stipend." He stated he did not have the funds to pay for his departure from the United States. The Immigration Judge found Kalogeras deportable on the overstay charge and did not rule on the additional charge of being employed for pay.

Petitioner appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the BIA on June 17, 1987. The BIA held that because the Immigration Judge had found Kalogeras deportable on the overstay charge, he had discretion to decline to rule on alternate grounds for deportation. The BIA held that Kalogeras had not been prejudiced by the decision not to rule on alternate grounds for deportability. Petitioner timely petitions this court for review of the BIA decision.

Kalogeras claims the BIA erred in not issuing a decision on the first deportation charge, violation of his non-immigrant visitor status by being employed for pay. He does not challenge the finding that he overstayed his visa. However, as the Supreme Court stated in I.N.S. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976), "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach." (citation omitted). The BIA and Immigration Judge did not err in declining to rule on the merits of the initial charge as there is ample evidence of deportability under the overstay charge.

To deport an alien for overstaying their visa, the INS must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alien was admitted for a limited time, that the time allotted had expired and the alien was still in the United States. Shahla v. INS, 749 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir. 1984).

Kalogeras admitted he had overstayed his visa during the original deportation hearing. He also testified that he had neither applied for nor received an extension on his visa. Thus, by his own testimony, Kalogeras provided the evidence necessary for the INS to carry its burden.

Additionally, Kalogeras has made no showing that he was prejudiced by the BIA declining to rule on his violation of status charge. Because nothing in the record shows that the agency acted other than in accordance with statutory law nor that Kalogeras was denied either a fair hearing or due process, we deny this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.