Diniz v. INS
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60247 Conference Calendar
MARIA LUIZA DOS SANTOS DINIZ,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A29 983 576 - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Luiza dos Santos Diniz asserts that the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in affirming the
order of the Immigration Judge denying her petition for
suspension of deportation. Diniz argues that the deportation
would result in “extreme hardship.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1).
We review the BIA’s findings of no “extreme hardship” under
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 96-60247 - 2 -
a strict standard for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Cordero v.
INS, 819 F.2d 558, 562-63 (5th Cir. 1987). Procedurally, our
review is to determine that the BIA considered the factors
individually and cumulatively. Id., at 563. Substantively, we
may find an abuse of discretion only when the hardship is such
that “any reasonable person would necessarily conclude that the
hardship is extreme.” Id.
After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that the
BIA did not abuse its discretion, either procedurally or
substantively, in determining that no “extreme hardship” existed
with the deportation of Diniz.
The petition for review is DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Diniz v. INS (Diniz v. INS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.