Diniz v. INS, No. 96-60247 (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 1997). · Go Syfert
Diniz v. INS, No. 96-60247 (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 1997). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Diniz
v.
INS
96-60247.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 24, 1997.
Unpublished opinion
Unpublished
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* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.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 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.