Source: https://openjurist.org/958/f2d/368/reyes-v-united-states-attorney-general
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 13:09:49
Document Index: 368917590

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1251', '§ 1182', '§ 846', '§ 7206', '§ 2', '§ 1252', '§ 1251', '§ 1182', '§ 212']

958 F2d 368 Reyes v. United States Attorney General | OpenJurist
958 F. 2d 368 - Reyes v. United States Attorney General
958 F2d 368 Reyes v. United States Attorney General
Walter Manuel Tapia REYES, Petitioner,
The UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; U.S. Immigration &
Walter Manuel Tapia Reyes appeals from the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming an immigration judge's order of deportation and denial of discretionary waiver relief pursuant to sections 241(a)(11) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(11) (West Supp.1991) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1988). Because we find no abuse of discretion in any aspect of the Board's order, we affirm.
In 1987 Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and distribution of more than one kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988), and filing a false income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (1988) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1988). Deportation proceedings were initiated by an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing issued on June 2, 1988, pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("Act"), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252 (West 1970 & Supp.1991). Due to the drug conviction, Petitioner was found deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(11) (West Supp.1991). Petitioner appealed the subsequent order of deportation and applied for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1988).
There is also no merit to Petitioner's contention that the Board abused its discretion in denying his application for waiver relief. Such waivers are discretionary. See McLean v. INS, 901 F.2d 204, 205 (1st Cir.1990) (standard of review in discretionary waiver cases); Variamparambil v. INS, 831 F.2d 1362, 1366 (7th Cir.1987); 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (1991).
The agency's findings of fact are entitled to deference on appeal. See Martin-Mendoza v. INS, 499 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1113 (1975). There is no reason to disturb the Board's credibility determination or factual finding of no rehabilitation. The Board took into account Petitioner's return to prison after being rearrested shortly after his release on parole, as well as his refusal to undergo drug abuse counseling, before concluding that Petitioner had not been rehabilitated.