Opinion ID: 694882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-Examination of probation report preparer

Text: 15 [A]n alien must have a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government. Id. at  9; 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(3). However, [a]liens in deportation proceedings may not assert a cross-examination right to prevent the government from establishing uncontested facts. Espinoza, 1995 U.S.App. LEXIS 7699, at  10 (internal quotations omitted). 16 Here, the probation report stated that two different victims were robbed by Luna at gunpoint, three and one-half hours apart, at two different locations. Luna submitted no evidence to contradict these facts. In fact, he testified that he did not remember anything about the robberies because he had taken PCP earlier in the evening. 17 Because the facts in the probation report were uncontested, Luna had no right to cross-examine the preparer of the report, and the IJ did not err in finding the report admissible. See id. IV Section 212(c) Waiver 18 We review agency fact-finding to see if it is supported by substantial evidence, and the balancing of the equities underlying a 212(c) determination for an abuse of discretion. Yepes-Prado v. INS, 10 F.3d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir.1993) (internal cites omitted). 19 A decision to deny section 212(c) relief will be set aside only if the BIA failed to support its conclusions with a reasoned explanation based upon legitimate concerns. Ayala-Chavez v. INS, 944 F.2d 638, 642 (9th Cir.1991) (internal quotations omitted). In deciding whether an alien merits relief under section 212(c), the BIA must take into account the social and humane considerations presented in the alien's favor and balance them against evidence of the alien's undesirability as a permanent resident. 1 Yepes-Prado, 10 F.3d at 1365-66. Applicants for discretionary relief who have been convicted of serious offenses must demonstrate unusual or outstanding equities. See Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 806 (9th Cir.1994). Where the BIA does not perform an independent review of the IJ's decision and instead defers to the IJ's exercise of his or her discretion, it is the IJ's decision that we review. Campos-Granillo v. INS, 12 F.3d 849, 852 (9th Cir.1993). 20 Here, because the BIA adopted the IJ's detailed balance of the factors considered in support of Luna's 212(c) application, we review the IJ's decision for substantial evidence. See id. The IJ noted Luna's equities, including his lengthy residence in this country, his family ties, his marriage to a United States citizen with whom he had a young son, his history of recent employment and a recommendation letter from his parole officer. Against these equities, the IJ weighed the following negative factors; (1) Luna, his wife and child were healthy, (2) Luna was bilingual, young and able to work, (3) Luna had not served in the armed forces, had no property or business ties, offered no evidence of service to the community and had been unemployed until one year before the deportation hearing. The IJ then considered Luna's pattern and succession of criminal acts, including that Luna; (1) had attended juvenile court schools since tenth grade due to delinquency, gang membership and difficulties with the police; (2) had admitted using drugs and abusing alcohol; (3) had been on probation for shooting a rival gang member at the time he committed the two robberies; (5) had used a loaded gun, threats of physical harm and premeditation in committing the robberies; (6) had been convicted of possessing a weapon while in prison for the robberies; and (7) had subsequently had his parole revoked for association with gang members. 21 Because the IJ supported its conclusion with a reasoned explanation based upon legitimate concerns, see Ayala-Chavez, 944 F.2d at 642, the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Luna's 212(c) application. 22 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.