* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential v alue and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled pr inciples 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should not be published.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

S))))))))))))))Q

No. 95-60004

Summary Calendar

S))))))))))))))Q

CHIN SIONG CHONG,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

S))))))))))))))))))))))))Q

Appeal from a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

A29 715 171

S))))))))))))))))))))))))Q

August 7, 1995

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner admitted deportability, and at the June 1991

hearing all that was ultimately at issue was his request for

voluntary d eparture, as he withdrew his earlier application for

suspension of deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)2

in the exercise of its discretion denied voluntary depart ure, as

had the Immigration Judge (IJ).

Petitioner complains in this Court that he was denied due

process because he was not afforded notice and an opportunity to

examine, sufficiently in advance of the June hearing, two documents

the INS furnished his counsel just before that hearing. These

documents related to an incident at the Niagara River in New York

in July 1990, at which Petitioner was detained or questioned on

suspicion of alien smuggl ing. Petitioner's counsel asked for "a

short continuance to allow me to investigate the status of these

allegations," but when the IJ thereafter indicated that these would

likely only be rebuttal evidence as to which Petitioner would not

be ent itled to a continuance, Petitioner's counsel responded by

saying, "The only reason I would request a continuance would be to

evaluate the request for relief which my client has made." The IJ

then allowed a half-hour recess. Later in the hearing, the INS

offered the documents. Petitioner's counsel objected on grounds of

relevancy, and because the documents allegedly referred to

c ontradictory dates and one was undated. The IJ stated he would

withhold ruling "until after I hear what testimony may be developed

to show the relevancy" and "I'll give you an opportunity to object

to the documents later." Later in the hearing the INS reoffered

the documents, but Petitioner's counsel made no objection. Before

the BIA, Petitioner (represented by counsel) did not question the

relevancy or authenticity of the documents. The incident to which

the documents related was mentioned in Petitioner's application for

suspension of deportation, and Petitioner's counsel h ad been3

specifically questioned about it by the IJ at the earlier February

1991 hearing. Petitioner testified about the July 1990 Niagara

incident at the June 20, 1991, hearing. Although Petitioner's

counsel stated at the June 20 hearing "we previously requested the

documents concerning this respondent from the Immigration Service,"

no such request, nor any evidence of it, is in the record. Nothing

indicates that the BIA relied on the documents in determining not

t o grant Petitioner voluntary departure. We conclude that

Petitioner has not establ ished that the proceedings below denied

him due process.

Petitioner's only remaining claim is tha t the evidence does

not sustain the BIA's determination that he did not merit the

discretionary relief of voluntary departure, and that the BIA

abused its discretion in declining to grant such relief. This is

a matter which is committed to the discretion of the BIA, and we

can find no abuse of discretion. It considered the evidence

favorable to petitioner and evidence unfavorable to him SQ apart from

th e challenged documents which it did not purport to rely on in

this connection. On our review of the record, we cannot say that

the BIA's ultimate decision was irrational or arbitrary or without

reasonabl e support (wholly apart from the challenged documents).

We reject Petitioner's contention in this respect.

Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is

AFFIRMED.