Antonio Claro Rodriguez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

97 F.3d 1460 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Antonio Claro RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 95-70286. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 19, 1996. * Decided Sept. 23, 1996. 1 Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, No. Ayq-crn-lmz. 2 B.I.A. 3 REVIEW DENIED. 4 Before: KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, ** District Judge. 5 MEMORANDUM *** 6 Petitioner claims that the BIA erred in rejecting his claim for Suspension of Deportation under Section 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (a). In making its decision, the BIA considered the effect deportation would have on petitioner's musical career, along with the other relevant factors, and nevertheless rejected his application. Since the INS is authorized to construe the definition of "extreme hardship" narrowly, INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 145 (1981) (per…