Singh v. INS ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 4 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SATNAM SINGH,
Petitioner,
v. No. 00-9502
(No. A72-965-883)
IMMIGRATION & (Petition for Review)
NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a
final order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on
January 18, 2000. On January 3, 1995, an immigration judge (IJ) found petitioner
to be deportable, denied his applications for asylum, withholding of deportation,
and suspension of deportation, and granted him voluntary departure. Petitioner
appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s holdings on de
novo review and dismissed the appeal. Petitioner filed a timely petition for
review of this final order of deportation. In his brief in support of the petition for
review, petitioner challenges only the denial of his application for suspension of
deportation filed pursuant to section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(subsequently repealed). Petitioner does not challenge the denial of his
application for asylum or withholding of deportation.
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 (“IIRIRA”), deportation proceedings initiated before April 1, 1997, for
which a final order of deportation is issued after October 30, 1996, are subject to
the transitional rules. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4); Berehe v. INS , 114 F.3d 159, 161
(10th Cir. 1997). The transitional rules provide, in pertinent part, that “there shall
be no appeal of any discretionary decision under section 212(c), 212(h), 212(i),
244 or 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect as of the date of
the enactment of this Act).” IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(E).
-2-
The BIA upheld the IJ’s denial of petitioner’s application for suspension of
deportation on the ground that petitioner failed to show he would suffer extreme
hardship if he returned to India. We recently held that “a determination by the
BIA that one seeking suspension of a deportation order has not shown extreme
hardship is a discretionary decision.” Escalera v. INS , 222 F.3d 753, 755 (10th
Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to review the
BIA’s denial of suspension of deportation.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-3-