Gonzalo Carrasco-Favela v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Gonzalo Carrasco-Favela v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

445 F.2d 865

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1971

Docket26764

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 445 F.2d 865 (Gonzalo Carrasco-Favela v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonzalo Carrasco-Favela v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 445 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner questions the validity of an order of the board deporting him to Mexico following an appeal by respondent from the special inquiry officer’s order granting petitioner a suspension of deportation.

We have examined the entire record and hold that the board’s findings ' are supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (4) 1 Consequently, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the board, in view of the evidence presented, abused its discretion in finding that petitioner was not eligible for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254. We hold there was no abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s contention that the board was without authority to overrule the finding of the inquiry officer has been considered and found without merit in Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405, 80 S.Ct. 1139, 4 L.Ed.2d 1299 (1960), rehearing denied 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 30, 5 L.Ed.2d 77 (1960); Noverola-Bolaina v. I. N. S., 395 F.2d 131, 135 (9th Cir. 1968) and Tovar v. I. N. S., 368 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 388 U.S. 915, 87 S.Ct. 2128, 18 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1967).

Other contentions urged by petitioner have been considered and found without substance.

The petition for review is denied and the order of deportation is affirmed.

1

. The board acts as the delegate of the Attorney General for purposes of this section.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner questions the validity of an order of the board deporting him to Mexico following an appeal by respondent from the special inquiry officer’s order granting petitioner a suspension of deportation.

We have examined the entire record and hold that the board’s findings ' are supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (4) 1 Consequently, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the board, in view of the evidence presented, abused its discretion in finding that petitioner was not eligible for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254. We hold there was no abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s contention that the board was without authority to overrule the finding of the inquiry officer has been considered and found without merit in Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405, 80 S.Ct. 1139, 4 L.Ed.2d 1299 (1960), rehearing denied 364 U.S. 854, 81 S.Ct. 30, 5 L.Ed.2d 77 (1960); Noverola-Bolaina v. I. N. S., 395 F.2d 131, 135 (9th Cir. 1968) and Tovar v. I. N. S., 368 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 388 U.S. 915, 87 S.Ct. 2128, 18 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1967).

Other contentions urged by petitioner have been considered and found without substance.

The petition for review is denied and the order of deportation is affirmed.

1

. The board acts as the delegate of the Attorney General for purposes of this section.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F.2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalo-carrasco-favela-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack