(caption unavailable)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 92-4841
_______________
RAJPAL SINGH TANWAR,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
_______________
No. 92-4846
_______________
MOHAN SINGH TANWAR,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
_______________
No. 92-4847
_______________
RAJPAL SINGH TANWAR,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.

-- 1 of 4 --

* Local Rule 47.5.1 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that this opinion should not be published.
1 Petitioners raise two additional points of error that were waived
because they were raised neither at the original hearing nor before the board
on appeal. Carnejo-Molina v. INS, 649 F.2d 1145, 1150-51 (5th Cir. Unit A
July 1981); see also Magubat v. INS, 937 F.2d 426, 430 (9th Cir. 1991)
(failure to raise issues before the Board deprives court of jurisdiction to
consider them).
_________________________
Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service
A41 805 279 A41 805 280
_________________________
April 8, 1993
Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ragpal Singh Tanwar and Mohan Singh Tanwar challenge their
deportation, claiming that the Board of Immigration Appeals should
have granted them a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(k) (1988).1 The
immigration judge held that petitioners failed to prove that they
could not have discovered the effect of marriage on their visa
through reasonable diligence. We review the Board's decision for
abuse of discretion. Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142 (5th
Cir. 1984). "It is our duty to allow decision to be made by the
Attorney General's delegate, even a decision that we deem in error,
so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly
without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational
that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible
rational approach." Id.
We find ample evidence in the record supporting the Board's
conclusion. Both Mohan and Rajpal signed the "Statement of

-- 2 of 4 --

2 Rajpal indicated that he could not speak English fluently but added no
such qualification as to his ability to read and write the language.
3 The signing of the "Statement of Marriageable Age Applicant"
distinguishes this case from Corniel-Rodriguez v. INS, 532 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.
1976). There, the court held that the INS could not deport an alien who had
received no warning that marriage before entering the country would nullify
her visa. Here, petitioners have received a warning.
Marriageable Age Applicant," which warned petitioners that marriage
would invalidate their visas. Petitioners claim that they did not
read and could not understand the form as it was printed in
English. On another form, however, Mohan indicated he could speak,
read and write in Hindi, Punjabi, and English, while Rajpal
indicated that he could speak, read, and write in English and
Hindi.2 Immigration officials can reasonably rely upon the
immigrant's representation that he speaks English.3 Sachdev v.
INS, 788 F.2d 912, 914 (2d Cir. 1986). Similarly, the officials
may assume that petitioners' signatures indicate that they have
read the form.
In addition, the record indicates that Rajpal and Mohan
studied English for two and three years, respectively, while in
high school. Without assistance, Mohan filled out a three-page
form printed in English; Rajpal also filled out that form in
English. Petitioners had three additional occasions to speak in
Hindi to American Embassy employees, yet they made no effort to
ascertain the meaning of the documents they had signed or to
inquire about how their upcoming marriages would affect their
immigration status. The failure to inquire is even more
significant, as petitioners both admitted that their father had
warned them that marriage would have some effect upon their
immigration status.

-- 3 of 4 --

Based upon this evidence, we hold that the Board had a
rational basis for its decision and did not abuse its discretion in
failing to grant petitioners a waiver pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(k) (1988). AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --