Chung Wook Myung v. District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

In challenging the respondent’s order that he be deported, the petitioner makes two contentions. He first argues that the Service abused its discretion in denying his application, based upon alleged hardship, for suspension of his deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1254 . In United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72, 77 , 77 S.Ct. 618, 621 , 1 L.Ed.2d 652 (1957), the Supreme Court wrote: “Suspension of deportation is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility; discretion must be exercised even though statutory prerequisites have been met.” In the light of the record before us here, we are not persuaded that the petitioner has been the victim of an abusive exercise of discretion. Cf. Kasravi v. I&NS, 400 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1968); Llacer v. I&NS, 388 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1968). See also Kwang Shick Myung v. I&NS, 368 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1966).

Next, the petitioner argues that he is exempt from deportation by reason of section 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (f), and our court’s decision in Vitales v. I&NS, 443 F.2d 343 (9th Cir. 1971 ). This contention must be rejected under the authority of United States v. Palmer,…