Robert Fonseca-Leite v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 961 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert Fonseca-Leite v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 961 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 · …in conducting our reviews we are constrained to give considerable deference to the bia's interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer. at p. 62 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 · …sentenced to the massachusetts correctional institution, concord, for the term of ten (10) years. at p. 62 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1995 · …we review final orders of deportation issued by the bia, examining questions of law de novo, but examining factual findings, such as a finding that an alien is not eligible for the withholding of deportation, solely to see if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. at p. 62 ≈ altered
35 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Silva de Santiago v. Bondi (ca5, 2025-12-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silva de Santiago v. Bondi
5th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
The aggregate sentences for those eight convictions was roughly 21.5 years of imprisonment—“[t]he actual time spent in confinement is irrelevant.” 33 Irrespective of whether Silva de Santiago’s conviction for aggravated assault constitutes a crime of violence, _____________________ 30 Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(B)). 31 Balogun v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274, 279 (5th Cir. 2001). 32 8 U.S.C.§ 1182(a)(2)(B). 33 Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992) (interpreting former 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(10)); see, e.g., Balogun, 270 F.3d at 276, 278-79 (5th Cir. 2001) (interpr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gebrgzabher v. Garland
5th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Gebrgzabher timely filed this petition for review. 3 II “We generally have authority to review only the decision of the BIA.” 4 But we will consider the IJ’s decision when, as here, “the IJ’s ruling 3 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1). 4 Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). 4 Case: 21-60223 Document: 00516581944 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/19/2022 No. 21-60223 affects the BIA’s decision.” 5 We review the BIA’s and IJ’s legal conclusions de novo, but any factual conclusions, including whether an applicant is ineligible for asylum, for substantial evidence. 6 To succeed on …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gutierrez v. Garland
5th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Factual findings of the BIA and IJ are reviewed for substantial evidence and questions of law are reviewed de novo, “giving ‘considerable deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer.’” Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992)). 2 Case: 20-61185 Document: 00516048836 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/08/2021 No. 20-61185 Both parties agree that to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, Gutierrez must demonstrate that a qualifying relative would suffer hardship that…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jesus Mercado v. Loretta Lynch
5th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
DISCUSSION We review questions of law raised in the Petition for Review de novo but give “considerable deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer.” Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Munoz v. InGenesis STGI Partners, LLC
S.D. Cal. · 2016 · confidence medium
Apr. 30, 2012) (“The purpose of the exemption is to allow employers who have eliminated a reservist’s position or otherwise drastically changed their business to avoid rehiring someone for a job that no longer exists.”) (citing Swint, 961 F.2d at 60).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wen Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr.
5th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
We “review factual findings of the BIA and IJ for substantial evidence, and questions of law de novo, giving ‘considerable deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer.’ ” Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nieto Hernandez v. Holder
5th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992) ("In conducting our reviews we are constrained to give considerable deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer.” (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Restrepo Monsalve v. Holder
5th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
“In conducting our reviews we are constrained to give considerable deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer.” Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) De Hoyos v. Mukasey
5th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
STANDARD OF REVIEW This court reviews de novo the BIA’s resolution of questions of law, giving “considerable deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer.” Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992)). “[T]he court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zhu v. Gonzales
5th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Indeed, the case cited by the government, Beltran-Resendez, indicates that we “consider the Immigration Judge’s decision only to the extent that it affects the BIA’s decision.” 207 F.3d at 286 (emphasis added). 13 See Majd, 446 F.3d at 594 (reviewing the IJ’s decision when BIA expressly adopted and affirmed IJ’s ruling). 14 Nakimbugwe, 475 F.3d at 283 . 15 Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zhu v. Gonzales
5th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
cited Cited as authority (rule) De La Paz Sanchez v. Gonzales
5th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) De La Paz Sanchez v. Gonzales
5th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rendon-Cortez v. INS
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992). 2.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jameran v. Ashcroft
5th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 61 (5th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davila v. Ashcroft
5th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
The decision of the BIA to deny asylum must be affirmed if -2- supported by “substantial evidence.” Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Beltran-Resendez v. Immigration & Naturalization Services
5th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Pichardo
5th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992); see also Nguyen v. INS, 53 F.3d 310 (10th Cir.1995); In re D-, Int.Dec. 3236, 1994 WL 284067 (BIA 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sicard v. City of Sioux City
N.D. Iowa · 1996 · confidence medium
I.N.S., 997 F.2d 1067, 1069 (3d Cir.1993), cert, denied, 510 U.S. 1081 , 114 S.Ct. 902 , 127 L.Ed.2d 93 (1994); Kennedy v. Shalala, 995 F.2d 28 , 30 (4th Cir.1993); Baum v. Madigan, 979 F.2d 438 , 443 (6th Cir.1992); Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992); Tolliver v. Xerox Corp., 918 F.2d 1052, 1057 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 983 , 111 S.Ct. 1641 , 113 L.Ed.2d 736 (1991); Massachusetts Dep’t of Educ. v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 837 F.2d 536, 540 (1st Cir.1988); Rybicki v. Hartley, 792 F.2d 260, 262 (1st Cir. 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Agbai Udeochu Opie v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
“We review final orders of deportation issued by the BIA, examining questions of law de novo, but examining factual findings, such as a finding that an alien is not eligible for the withholding of deportation, solely to see if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992) (internal citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rene Madrid-Tavarez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992). 4 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Madrid-Tavarez v. I.N.S.
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
But, the Second Circuit found that limitation unconstitutional in Francis v. INS, [ 532 F.2d 268 ,] and the BIA has since provided such discretionary relief to aliens within the United States.5 For the last forty years, the BIA has interpreted this language as requiring that, to be statutorily eligible, the alien must have been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for at least seven years prior to his or her application for § 212(c) relief.6 Two circuits have approved this 3 Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992). 4 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448 , 107 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AGBAI UDEOCHU OPIE v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
unknown court · confidence medium
"We review final orders of deportation issued by the BIA, examining questions of law de novo, but examining factual findings, such as a finding that an alien is not eligible for the withholding of deportation, solely to see if such findings are supported by substantial evidence." Fonseca-Leite v. I.N.S., 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Kirby Lee Jones
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Haynes, 961 F.2d 60 (4th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rui v. INS
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992) (two consecutive three year sentences amounted to six years, regardless of the fact that only two years were actually served); Matter of Castro, 19 I. & N. Dec. 692, 695 (BIA 1988) (similar); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rui v. INS
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., ___ ____ Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1992) (two _____________ ___ consecutive three year sentences amounted to six years, regardless of the fact that only two years were actually served); Matter of Castro, 19 I. & N. Dec. 692, 695 (BIA ________________ 1988) (similar); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rui Fernando Da Conceicao Rodrigues v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
1st Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Fonseca-Leite v. INS, 961 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1992) (two consecutive three year sentences amounted to six years, regardless of the fact that only two years were actually served); Matter of Castro, 19 I. & N.Dec. 692, 695 (BIA 1988) (similar); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert FONSECA-LEITE, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
91-4820.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 15, 1992.
961 F.2d 60
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 9586
Peter D. Williamson, Kelly A. Chaves, Houston, Tex., for petitioner., Richard Thornburgh, Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., David M. McConnell, Alice M. King, Attys., Mark Walters, David J. Kline, Asst. Directors, Robert L. Bombough, Director, OIL, Civ., Div., for respondent., John B.Z. Caplinger, Dist. Director, I.N.S., New Orleans, La., Richard G. Parra, Dist. Director, Houston, Tex., for other interested parties.
Politz, King, Garza.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: D. Minnesota (1)
POLITZ, Chief Judge:

Robert Fonseca-Leite petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his applications for registry, suspension of deportation, and voluntary departure. Finding no basis 'for rejecting the rulings of the BIA we deny the petition for review.

Background

Fonseca-Leite is a native and citizen of Brazil who has resided in the United States since 1967, last entering this country as a visitor in 1974. In July 1988 he was convicted of possession of a firearm without a serial number and possession of an unregistered firearm. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment on each count, with sentences to run consecutively. The sentence on the second count was suspended. He was incarcerated 24 months and '20 days in federal prison on the first count. He apparently was a model prisoner. Upon his release deportation proceedings were initiated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Fonseca-Leite admitted the relevant facts and conceded deport-ability but requested relief from deportation in the form of suspension, registry, and voluntary departure. The immigration judge concluded that Fonseca-Leite was statutorily ineligible for the relief he sought, denied same, and ordered him deported to Brazil. Fonseca-Leite appealed to the BIA which found that he was ineligi[*62] ble for admission under section 212(a)(10) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10), because he was an alien convicted of two or more offenses “for which the aggregate sentences to confinement actually imposed were five years or more.” Id. His application for voluntary departure was also denied because he failed to show good moral character for five years immediately preceding his application, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e), and because he was incarcerated for more than 180 days during that five-year period, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7). Fonseca-Leite timely filed his petition for review.

Analysis

We review final orders of deportation issued by the BIA, examining questions of law de novo, De La Cruz v. I.N.S., 951 F.2d 226 (9th Cir.1991), but examining factual findings, such as a finding that an alien is not eligible for the withholding of deportation, solely to see if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Zamora-Morel v. I.N.S., 905 F.2d 833 (5th Cir.1990); Rivera-Zurita v. I.N.S., 946 F.2d 118 (10th Cir.1991). In conducting our reviews we are constrained to give considerable deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the legislative scheme it is entrusted to administer. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). In the case at bar, we look only to see if there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s factual finding that Fonseca-Leite was statutorily ineligible for the relief he sought.

Fonseca-Leite maintains that the Board erred in applying the prohibition of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10) against him because he was not subjected to a prison sentence in excess of five years on his two offenses. He points to the fact that he was confined for just over two years. Fonseca misperceives the law. The actual time spent in confinement is irrelevant. He was sentenced to two consecutive three-year periods of confinement. Six years was “the aggregate sentences to confinement actually imposed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10). That a portion of the six years was suspended does not change that essential and basic fact. Matter of Castro, 19 I & N Dec. 692 (BIA 1988). The BIA did not err in holding that Fonseca-Leite is ineligible for admission into the United States.

Fonseca-Leite next maintains that the BIA erred when it found him ineligible for voluntary departure under section 1101(f)(7) which denies such departure to anyone convicted and confined to a penal institution for as much as 180 days in the previous five years. He challenges the constitutionality of this section. We must reject this claim also. The power of Congress to expel or exclude aliens is fundamental and plenary. In exercising its power over immigration and naturalization “Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977). Judicial review of the exercise of this legislative power is very limited. Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir.1989). The challenged section 1101(f)(7) has consistently been upheld by the courts. De La Cruz; Rivera-Zurita; United States v. Villa-Fabela, 882 F.2d 434 (9th Cir.1989). We perceive no basis for rejecting this ruling by the BIA.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.