Maria Socorro Guerrero De Reynoso and Jose Reynoso-Gonzales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

627 F.2d 958 Maria Socorro Guerrero DE REYNOSO and Jose Reynoso-Gonzales, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 79-7226. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 2, 1980. Decided Sept. 11, 1980. Paul A. Schelly, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for petitioners; Raymundo Q. Campos, Vivero & Campos, Los Angeles, Cal., on brief. Eva S. Halbreich, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service. Before GOODWIN and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, * District Judge. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge. 1 The only issue in this petition for review of an order denying suspension of deportation is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1254 in denying relief. We have examined the case in the light of this court's recent en banc decisions in Wang v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1980); and Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980). We are unable to find an abuse of discretion. 2 Like the petitioners in Wang, the petitioners here have…

The only issue in this petition for review of an order denying suspension of deportation is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1254 in denying relief. We have examined the case in the light of this court’s recent en banc decisions in Wang v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1980); and Villena v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980). We are unable to find an abuse of discretion.

Like the petitioners in Wang , the petitioners here have lived illegally for several years in the United States without generating any other reason to believe that they are not of good moral character. They have accumulated a modest collection of personal property, and by thrift and industry have improved their standard of living over that which they probably would have enjoyed in their native Mexico.

Unlike the Wangs, these petitioners have no United States citizen children or other citizen dependents. They do have some relatives who reside in the United States including Jose’s parents whom they help with their support. The only real hardship caused by repatriation in this case, however, would be the…

(dissenting):

I dissent.

Mr. and Mrs. Reynoso-Gonzalez (Reynoso) petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s order of deportation. Petitioners contest the immigration judge’s conclusion, adopted by a divided Board, that the Reynosos failed to show eligibility for suspension of deportation under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254 .

To be eligible for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (a)(1), a deportable alien must show: (1) at least seven years continuous physical presence in the United States immediately before the filing of the application for suspension of deportation; (2) good moral character during that period; and (3) extreme hardship, resulting from deportation, to the alien, or to his spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen of the United States, or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 1

In suspension of deportation proceedings, the alien has the burden of presenting evidence that establishes his or her eligibility for the discretionary relief provided by § 1254(a). Here the Reynosos satisfied the requirements of seven years continuous presence and good…