Opinion ID: 573876
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Departure from BIA Policies

Text: 14 Petitioner alleges abuse of discretion based on an inexplicable departure from established BIA policies, see McLean, 901 F.2d at 205; Williams, 773 F.2d at 9, relating to BIA procedures for considering discretionary relief for drug offenders. Petitioner perceives two recent policy shifts: one relating to the manner in which the BIA evaluates the applications of petitioners who are required to demonstrate outstanding equities; and a second policy relating to the demonstration of rehabilitation. Since both of the alleged shifts are seen as emanating from the same decision, we discuss them together. 15 Petitioner argues that the recent BIA decision in Matter of Edwards, Int.Dec. 3134, modifies BIA procedure in cases like the present. The BIA made clear in Edwards that the BIA is required to conduct a full examination of an alien's equities in all cases, including those involving drug offenders. Id. The Edwards clarification was considered appropriate because the BIA believed that certain language in an earlier case, Buscemi, was potentially misleading. Id. Buscemi indicated, in effect, that an alien who established unusual or outstanding equities had not thereby demonstrated that discretionary relief was merited, but had merely met the threshold test for having a favorable exercise of discretion considered in his case. Buscemi, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 634. The Edwards decision expressed concern that Buscemi might have been taken to imply that a full examination of an alien's equities can somehow be pretermitted. Edwards, Int.Dec. 3134. Edwards disavowed the potentially misleading language and confirmed that a proper merit determination can only be made after a complete review of the favorable factors in [each] case. Id. Edwards also made clear that certain language in Marin, 16 I. & N. Dec. at 588, and Buscemi, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 635--stating, in effect, that a petitioner with a criminal record ordinarily is required to demonstrate rehabilitation before relief can be granted--did not mean that rehabilitation was an absolute prerequisite to relief, but a factor to be considered in exercising discretion. Edwards, Int.Dec. 3134. 16 We cannot agree that Edwards represents an inexplicable shift in BIA policy or, for that matter, any significant shift at all. Edwards did no more than clarify ambiguous language in earlier BIA decisions. See Ayala-Chavez, 944 F.2d at 641 n. 3 (Edwards merely explained Buscemi and made it clear that a full examination of an alien's equities could not be pretermitted). Nor did the potentially misleading language improperly influence the BIA in its disposition of petitioner's application. The BIA in the instant case considered all relevant factors, balanced the equities and did not treat rehabilitation as an absolute prerequisite to relief.