Murillo v. INS

No. 99-60364
-1-
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60364
Summary Calendar
ALEJANDRO MURILLO,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A27-488-218
--------------------
February 25, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alejandro Murillo has filed a petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) final order of deportation.
He challenges the BIA’s denial of a hardship waiver under
8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). Specifically, he contends (1) that
the BIA’s finding that he failed to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that he had married in good faith is not supported
by substantial evidence, (2) that the BIA erred as a matter of
law when it stated that certain forms of documentary evidence had
to be submitted to corroborate the existence of a good-faith

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-60364
-2-
marriage, and (3) that the BIA abused its discretion in denying
him a hardship waiver because its decision “is without a rational
explanation and departs from established policies.”
After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we
conclude that Murillo has not shown any error on the part of the
BIA. The BIA’s finding that Murillo failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that he had married in good faith
was reasonable in light of the evidence presented and, therefore,
was supported by substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v.
INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Murillo’s second
contention--that the BIA stated that certain forms of documentary
evidence had to be submitted to corroborate the existence of a
good-faith marriage--is not supported by the record. The record
reflects that the BIA stated merely that such documentary
evidence typically should be provided to corroborate the
existence of a good-faith marriage and that Murillo’s failure to
provide such probative evidence contributed to--but was not the
sole basis of--its decision. Finally, Murillo’s contention
regarding an abuse of discretion on the part of the BIA is too
conclusional to warrant relief. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(stating that issues must be briefed
to be preserved). Accordingly, Murillo’s petition for review is
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --