PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order denying defendant's post-conviction relief motion because, under Saldena v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1419 (Fla. 3d DCA June 6, 2001), an immigration notice that investigation into thepossibility of deportation has commenced is insufficient to warrant affording a defendant relief under Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2000). Hence, defendant's motion is insufficient under Peart. Perez v. Moore, 767 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 2000). This affirmance is without prejudice to defendant refiling his post-conviction relief motion if the immigration investigation into deporting him should come to fruition.
Affirmed without prejudice.