Petitioner comes to this court from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen and reconsider a deportation order. The issue raised here as to whether there was evidence to show more than a “single scheme” was decided adversely to petitioner on his first appeal to this court. Glaros v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 441.

Petitioner contends nevertheless, that a letter from the trial judge in the Pennsylvania proceedings upon which the deportation action is based shows that there was only one scheme. This letter was written after the prior appeal to this court. Assuming without deciding that the letter is properly admissible into evidence, we hold that it adds no new facts to the record but merely contains the conclusion of the trial judge that only a single scheme was involved. 1 Regardless *686 of whether there was only one trial and one sentence, the record clearly shows that petitioner was proceeded against for two separate offenses against two separate persons. Evidence of a cumulative nature is not sufficient to reopen a deportation proceeding. See LunaBenalcazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 6 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 254.

The petition to review the order denying the Motion to Reopen and Reconsider Deportation Order is denied; the Order of Deportation is enforced.