Unpublished Disposition, 875 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
Ezra RAITEN, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 1, 1989.Decided May 11, 1989.
Before SNEED, REINHARDT and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
Ezra Raiten appeals from the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying him a discretionary waiver of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Section 1182(h) provides for a waiver if the applicant can show "extreme hardship" to a citizen or permanent resient alien spouse, parent or child. We review the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) only for an arbitrary exercise of authority. Mejia-Carrillo v. INS, 656 F.2d 520, 522 (9th Cir. 1981).
At the deportation hearing, appellant failed to present significant evidence of extreme hardship either to his citizen wife or to their expected child. The BIA considered the small amount of evidence produced by appellant and deemed it insufficient to warrant a waiver. Since the BIA weighed the relevant factors and did not act contrary to law, we affirm. See Contreras-Buenfil v. INS, 712 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1983).
Appellant also obliquely suggests that the BIA erred in ignoring the findings of the immigration judge. However, the Board has the authority to conduct a de novo review of the evidentiary record. See Canjura-Flores v. INS, 784 F.2d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover, it appears that the BIA did not reverse the factual findings of the immigration judge but merely held that they were legally insufficient to constitute extreme hardship. The INS has the authority to reach this conclusion. See INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 145 (1981). We therefore hold that the BIA did not act arbitrarily in refusing to waive deportation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3