Opinion ID: 701031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Section 212(c) Relief

Text: 12 We review agency fact-finding to see if it is supported by substantial evidence, and the balancing of the equities underlying a [section] 212(c) determination for an abuse of discretion. Yepes-Prado v. INS, 10 F.3d 1363, 1366 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). A decision to deny section 212(c) relief will be set aside only if the BIA fails to support its conclusions with a reasoned explanation based upon legitimate concerns. Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 1987). [W]here 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). 13 The IJ must determine whether to grant section 212(c) relief based on all the facts and circumstances of a particular case, taking into account the social and humane considerations presented in an applicant's favor and balancing them against the adverse factors that evidence the applicant's undesirability as a permanent resident. Yepes-Prado, 10 F.3d at 1365-66. 14 Favorable considerations include: 1) family ties within the U.S.; 2) residence of long duration in this country (particularly when the residence began at a young age); 3) hardship to the petitioner or petitioner's family if relief is not granted; 4) service in the United States armed forces; 5) a history of employment; 6) the existence of business of property ties; 7) evidence of service to the community; 8) proof of rehabilitation if a criminal record exists; and 9) other evidence of good character. 15 Id. at 1366. These favorable factors are weighed against: 1) the nature and underlying circumstances of the crime; 2) additional violations of immigration law; 3) the existence, seriousness, and recency of any criminal record; and 4) other evidence of bad character or the undesirability of the applicant. Id. In addition, where the alien has been convicted of a serious drug crime, the BIA may require the alien to show outstanding equities warranting a favorable exercise of discretion. See Johnson v. INS, 971 F.2d 340, 344 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Matter of Burbano, Int. Dec. 3229 (BIA 1994). 16 Here, in considering the favorable equities, the IJ recognized that (1) Burgos had extensive family ties within the United States, including a Unites States citizen daughter, (2) Burgos had resided here since the age of 15, (3) returning to Columbia with her daughter would be difficult. The IJ found these to be significant factor[s]. 17 In considering the negative equities, however, the IJ found that Burgos had been convicted of a serious drug crime, had a spotty employment record, was on public assistance prior to her arrest, had offered no evidence of community service, and had no business or property ties. The IJ observed that Burgos had acknowledged her drug problem and had sought treatment, but that her pre-sentencing report, indicated that she was a greater participant in the cocaine transaction than she had admitted at the deportation hearing and that her participation in this activity was [not] solely to support her drug habit. Finally, the IJ found that her flight from justice following her conviction, which only ended when she was apprehended by U.S. Marshals, was incompatible with a showing of rehabilitation or a favorable exercise of discretion. 18 The BIA, in affirming the IJ's decision, went on to specifically find that these negative factors outlined by the IJ were not overcome by Burgos's completion of a GED or her indications of remorse. 19 Given these circumstances, the BIA supported its decision affirming the IJ's denial of section 212(c) relief with a reasoned explanation based upon legitimate concerns. Vargas, 831 F.2d at 908; see also Yepes-Prado, 10 F.3d at 1373. 20 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.