IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-60772
Summary Calendar
_____________________
CLELIA ARACELY RIVERA-ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A-29-322-950
_________________________________________________________________
July 9, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clelia Aracely Rivera-Estrada petitions for review the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (the “BIA”) order denying her application
for adjustment of status and request for voluntary departure.
Rivera-Estrada argues that she should be awarded an adjustment of
status, and alternatively, voluntary departure, because she meets
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
the statutory requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) and the record
does not support the BIA’s fact findings. Rivera-Estrada also
contends that the BIA erred by basing its decision, in part, on her
violation of immigration law because her previous deportation was
“waived” by the INS.
Because § 1255(a) provides for discretionary adjustment of
status, Rivera-Estrada is not entitled to such relief. Jarecha v.
INS, 417 F.2d 220, 223 (5th Cir. 1969). The BIA’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence; therefore, Rivera-Estrada has
failed to show an abuse of discretion. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d
76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by
basing its decision in part on her immigration violations because
substantial evidence supports such finding and the INS did not
“waive” her previous deportation. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.2(e). The
BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rivera-Estrada’s
request for voluntary departure based on the same reasons for its
denial of adjustment of her status. See 8 U.S.C. §§
1101(f)(3),(6), 1182(a)(2)(A)(West 1970 & West Supp. 1996).
Rivera-Estrada’s petition for review is
D E N I E D.
-2-
-3-