Opinion ID: 772417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purpose of Departure

Text: 25 Espinoza first argues that he left the United States primarily to support his family and not to avoid service in the United States military. Thus, he claims he does not fall under the provisions of S 1182(a)(22). In support of his argument, he relies on Matter of Nunez-Toro. 8 26 In Nunez-Toro, the BIA held that S 1182(a)(22) did not exclude the alien in question because his primary purpose in leaving the United States had not been to avoid military service but to help his mother. 9 In so holding, the BIA relied on facts showing that the alien had voluntarily enlisted in the United States Army, that he genuinely believed his mother needed aid, that he had voluntarily surrendered to the United States military authorities in Costa Rica in 1963, and that he had, for some time, expressed a desire to be permitted to complete his enlistment of three years in the United States Army. 10 27 The facts in this case are in stark contrast to those in Nunez-Toro. First, Espinoza showed no desire to complete his term of military service after his desertion. When contacted by United States officials in 1964, for example, he told them he had no intention of returning either to military service or to the United States. Thus, unlike Nunez-Toro, Espinoza has never sought to fulfill his military duties. Second, even if in some circumstances economic reasons might remove an alien from the reach of S 1182 as familial need did in Nunez-Toro, this case would not present those circumstances. 11 The facts belie Espinoza's claim that he left for economic reasons. As the IJ pointed out, after Espinoza deserted, he chose to engage in an enterprise that allowed him to send no more money back to his family than had his military service. 28 The IJ specifically rejected Espinoza's contention that he left for economic reasons and found instead that Espinoza left and remained outside the United States to avoid or evade service or training in the military. The BIA agreed, specifically noting that Espinoza's contention that he left the military for economic reasons was not plausible. The evidence supporting the BIA's decision is substantial and does not compel a contrary result. Thus, we deny the petition for review on this issue. 12