(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 93-4914
Summary Calendar
_____________________
GILDARDO GARCIA-GARFIAS,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service
(A26 605 903)
_________________________________________________________________
(December 8, 1993)
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The issue in this appeal concerns whether Mr. Garcia-Garfias
or his spouse will suffer "extreme hardship" as defined by the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 if he is deported to
Mexico. Because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its

-- 1 of 5 --

1Although the INS issued the Order to Show Cause in June of
1983, for some unapparent reason, this Order was not brought before
the Immigration Court until February 1989.
-2-
discretion in determining that neither Mr. Garfias or his spouse
would suffer extreme hardship, we affirm.
I
Gildardo Garcia-Garfias ("Garfias"), a native and citizen of
Mexico, entered the United States illegally in 1976. He worked
various jobs, and in 1984, he met Lilly K. Stamper. Garfias began
living with Ms. Stamper in 1984, and, although they have never been
formally married, they have considered themselves common law
husband and wife since 1986. In June 1983, Garfias was issued an
Order to Show Cause by the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
charging that Garfias was deportable under the provisions of
Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for entry
without inspections.1 Garfias conceded deportability and applied
for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254. After a
hearing, the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied Garfias's application
for suspension of deportation, although he granted a request for
voluntary deportation. Garfias appealed the denial of suspension
of deportation to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). The
BIA agreed with the IJ's holding, and dismissed the appeal.
Garfias now appeals to this court, seeking review of the BIA's
dismissal.
II

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
The sole issue in this appeal concerns whether the BIA
properly dismissed Garfias's appeal of the IJ's decision to deny
suspension of deportation. We are authorized to review only the
decision of the BIA, not the decision of the IJ, except to the
extent that the errors of the IJ affect the de novo review of the
BIA. Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 1993).
Generally, we review final orders of deportation and examine
factual findings to determine only whether there is substantial
evidence to support the Board's conclusion. Diaz-Resendez v. INS,
960 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1992); Hernandez-Cordero v. United States
INS, 819 F.2d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 1987); see 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4)
(1970). However, a BIA finding regarding the "extreme hardship"
requirement is reviewed under the more limited abuse of discretion
standard. Hernandez-Cordero, 819 F.2d at 560. The BIA has broad
discretion to narrowly define "extreme hardship." Hernandez-
Cordero v. United States INS, 819 F.2d at 561 (citing INS v. Jong
Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 101 S.Ct. 1027, 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981)).
The burden of establishing eligibility for suspension of
deportation is on the alien. Id.
To qualify for suspension of deportation, Garfias was required
to demonstrate that he had been physically present in the United
States for at least seven continuous years; that he was a person of
good moral character; and that he was a person whose deportation
would result in "extreme hardship" either to himself, or to a
spouse, child, or parent who is an American citizen or a permanent

-- 3 of 5 --

2The IJ also held that Garfias "has not met his burden of
proof of affirmatively showing in this record that he has been a
person of good moral character for the required period of seven
years." Although the BIA's dismissal was based solely on a lack of
extreme hardship, in his appeal to this court, Garfias argues only
that the IJ erroneously held that there was no extreme hardship.
Garfias now argues that because the BIA did not address the
question of good moral character, the BIA implicitly found that
Garfias met the "good moral character" requirement of the statute.
We disagree. The BIA might have skipped the character discussion
simply because it found Garfias ineligible for suspension of
deportation because he failed to meet the "extreme hardship"
requirement. As such, even if Garfias were successful in
persuading this court that the BIA abused its discretion in finding
no extreme hardship, he has not demonstrated that he meets all the
requirements of the statute.
-4-
resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (1970). After the hearing, the IJ
determined that although Garfias had resided in the United States
for at least seven continuous years, Garfias did not demonstrate
that he was a person of good moral character, or that he or his
wife would suffer "extreme hardship" if he were deported to Mexico.
Because Garfias did not meet two of the three requirements for
suspension of deportation, the IJ denied his application.
In his appeal to the BIA, Garfias argued that the IJ erred in
determining that his wife would not suffer "extreme hardship."2
Garfias apparently concedes that the IJ's finding that Garfias
himself would not suffer extreme hardship was proper. With respect
to Ms. Stamper, Garfias introduced evidence that although she is
"relatively young and gainfully employed," she suffers from high
blood pressure. To maintain her blood pressure at a reasonable
level, Ms. Stamper is required to take daily medication and to
visit her physician on a regular monthly basis. Ms. Stamper

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
further testified that she had difficulties in the past finding a
doctor who could manage her condition, and now that she has located
a doctor who can provide effective treatment and in whom she has
trust, she would suffer extreme hardship if she were required to
move to Mexico with her husband. Further, she testified that if
Garfias were deported to Mexico and she chose to remain in the
United States, she would suffer extreme hardship from the
separation. Although the IJ acknowledged that Ms. Stamper would be
faced with a difficult choice if Garfias were deported, he
concluded that she would not suffer a hardship that was
substantially different from or more severe than that suffered by
the ordinary alien who is deported. See Sanchez v. United States
INS, 755 F.2d 1158, 1161 (5th Cir. 1985). Although we likewise
acknowledge that Ms. Stamper is faced with a difficult decision, we
do not find that the evidence presented was so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find that the requirements for
relief were met. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, ___ U.S ___, 112 S.Ct.
812, 817 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we find that there
was no abuse of discretion.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals is
A F F I R M E D.

-- 5 of 5 --