* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis ofwell-settled principles oflaw 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Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-60051

Summary Calendar

_______________________

CHIKIOKE OVUIKE,

Petitioner,

versus

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(A26-083-107)

_________________________________________________________________

(October 12, 1995)

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following the decision ofthe Board ofImmigration Appeals to affirm an immigration

judge’s order of deportation, Chikioke Ovuike petitioned this court to review the Board’s decision.

Ovuike contends that the Board erred in not finding that his deportation would result in “extreme

hardship” to hisspouse and in failing to consider his eligibility for waiver of deportation. Finding no

error, we dismiss the petition for review.

BACKGROUND
1 Under this provision, the Attorney General may deport an alien who “at any time after entry is convicted

of two crimes involving moral turpitude . . . regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions

where in a single trial.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(4)(1970). The Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT) revised and renumbered

the deportability grounds for deportation proceedings commenced on or after March 1, 1991. Section 602, IMMACT, Pub. L.

No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5077-82 (Nov. 29, 1990). Since petitioner’s proceedings commenced on August 24, 1989, with

the issuance of his OSC, the revised grounds do not apply.

2

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an order to show cause

(OCS) charging Ovuike, a native-born Nigerian, with deportability from the United States under §

241(a) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(4)(1970), as an alien convicted

oftwo crimesinvolvingmoralturpitude.1 At his deportation hearing, Ovuike admitted the allegations

in the OCS, conceded his deportability, and applied for a readjustment of status and waiver of

inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(h) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(h)(1970). The immigration judge

(IJ) denied his request for a § 212(h) wavier because Ovuike had failed to demonstrate that his

deportation would result in “extreme hardship” to his U.S. citizen wife and because Ovuike did not

warrant the waiver as a matter of discretion.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissed Ovuike’s appeal, finding that

Ovuike did not warrant a grant of adjustment or a waiver as a matter of discretion. Ovuike petitioned

this court to review the Board’s decision contending that the Board abused its discretion by finding

that he failed to demonstrate that hisspouse would suffer “extreme hardship” if he was deported and

that the Board erred when it failed to consider his eligibility for a waiver of deportation under §

212(c), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(c)(1995).

DISCUSSION

In relevant part, section 212(h) provides that the Attorney General, may in her

discretion, waive a finding ofinadmissibility of an alien who is “the spouse, parent, orson or daughter

of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is

established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien’s exclusion would result in

extreme hardship to the United States citizen . . . .” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(h)(1995). This court’s review

of the Board decisions “is limited by the broad discretion accorded the Attorney General and the

Board ofImmigration Appeals as[her] delegate” and isreviewed for abuse of discretion. Osuchukwu
3

v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 744 F.2d 1136, 1137, 1139 (5th Cir. 1984). The Board’s

scope of discretion under § 212(h) is the same as that applied in a suspension-of-deportation

proceeding under § 244(a)(1), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254(a)(1). Id. at 1140. In that context, this court has

stated that “the [Board] abuse[s] its discretion only in a case where the hardship is uniquely extreme,

at or closely approaching the outer limits of the most severe hardship the alien could suffer and so

severe that any reasonable person would necessarily conclude that the hardship is extreme.”

Hernandez-Cordero v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 819 F.2d 558, 563 (5th

Cir. 1987).

When measured against thisstandard, the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding

that the hardship facing Ovuike’s spouse was not extreme. Ovuike presented evidence of his wife’s

physical disability. However, the evidence also showed that Mrs. Ovuike relied upon her family

members to care for her during Ovuike’s ten month incarceration for an earlier crime and her

testimony suggests that she would again rely upon her family if he was not available. Additionally,

although Ovuike and his wife testified that he assists her, she is able to care for herself while Ovuike

attends school and works between five and fourteen hours a day. Ovuike’s deportation will likely be

an inconvenience, but he has not shown that the Board’s decision was an abuse of discretion.

Ovuike also disputes what he perceives is the finding by the IJ and the Board that the

evidence of his wife’s total disability was not credible and that the IJ and the Board failed to consider

evidence of his rehabilitation, his school attendance, and his employment. This court will not

substitute its “judgment for that of the [Board] or the IJ with respect to the credibility of the

witnesses or ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations,” Chun v. Immigration and

Naturalization Serv., 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5thCir. 1994), and “we are not permitted to review theBoard’s

opinion for the sufficiency of record support or even for clear error.” Osuchukwu, 744 F.2d at 1142.

Based on the facts, the Board did not abuse its discretion in making a no extreme hardship

determination.
4

Lastly, Ovuike argues that the Board erred when it failed to consider his eligibility for

a waiver of deportation under § 212(c), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(c). He contends that he became eligible

for a § 212 waiver while his appeal was pending before the Board.

Ovuike raises this issue for the first time on appeal. This court’s review is limited to

the administrative record. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105(a)(4) & (c); Hernandez v. Immigration and

Naturalization Serv., 539 F.2d 384, 385-86 (5th Cir. 1976). Consequently, this court may not

consider this issue.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.