Opinion ID: 590729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: discretionary waiver of deportation

Text: 23 Woldesmayate alternatively contends that he was entitled to a waiver of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). That provision permits a grant of discretionary relief to aliens who have lawfully resided here for seven years. Applicants convicted of serious drug offenses must show outstanding equities in order to qualify. Ayala-Chavez v. INS, 944 F.2d 638, 641 (9th Cir.1991). We review the denial of relief for abuse of discretion, and cannot set aside the decision unless the board fails to support its conclusions with a reasoned explanation based upon legitimate concerns. Vargas v. United States Dep't of Imm. & Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir.1987). 24 Woldesmayate maintains that the BIA failed to provide this explanation. But the record indicates that the BIA fully canvassed the equities weighing in Woldesmayate's favor: his eight-year residence, his many friends, his virtually continuous employment, his attempts to learn English, and the hardships anticipated upon his return to Ethiopia. It concluded that these equities were outstanding, but also noted that the countervailing negative factors were very serious. The BIA did not find persuasive Woldesmayate's justification for his assault and drug trafficking offense (committed shortly after release from his first imprisonment) considering the length of the sentences for his assault conviction (apparently his first conviction) and his narcotics conviction. While his prison record for good behavior was a positive showing, it did not establish reformation or rehabilitation. These statements indicate that the BIA's explanation was reasoned and based upon legitimate concerns. See id. at 909 (upholding denial of relief where the BIA deferred to the IJ's conclusions regarding the seriousness of the offense and the applicant's failure to rehabilitate). 25 Woldesmayate alternatively contends that the BIA's approach effectively bars drug offenders from obtaining relief under section 1182(c). This contention lacks merit. The record indicates that the BIA did not rest its evaluation on the offenses per se, but also considered the length of the sentences imposed and evidence of rehabilitation. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a waiver of deportation.