Opinion ID: 573876
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standard of Review by BIA

Text: 17 Finally, petitioner asserts that the BIA deferred to the decision of the immigration judge, whereas it should have conducted de novo review. Although petitioner concedes that the BIA is under no legal obligation to conduct de novo review, 4 he argues that de novo review was required because the BIA made findings of fact which differed from those of the immigration judge and because it made supplemental findings based on the new evidence petitioner submitted to the BIA. 18 We discern no contradiction between the findings of the BIA and those of the immigration judge. Petitioner argues that, unlike the immigration judge, the BIA explicitly found that the petitioner possessed outstanding equities and implicitly found that petitioner had been rehabilitated. As previously explained, we cannot agree with petitioner's contention that the BIA made an implicit finding of rehabilitation. Moreover, while the immigration judge did not make an explicit finding of outstanding equities, he found that several factors favored discretionary relief, and there is nothing in the immigration judge's opinion which would suggest that these favorable factors were not outstanding equities. 19 Finally, while the BIA made supplemental findings, we perceive no sound basis, either in law or reason, for concluding that the BIA was thereby disabled from upholding the immigration judge's decision. The BIA has full power to determine factual issues in cases before it, 1 C. Gordon & S. Mailman, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 3.05[b] at p. 3-57; see, e.g., Matter of B., 7 I. & N. Dec. 1, 14 (BIA 1956), and may consider new evidence not presented to the immigration judge, Matter of Demosthenes, 13 I. & N. Dec. 345, 346 n. 1 (BIA 1969); Matter of Godfrey, 13 I. & N. Dec. 790, 791 n. 1 (BIA 1971). Moreover, at least in cases where no new ground for deportation is presented, see, e.g., Matter of Rios-Carrillo, 10 I. & N. Dec. 291 (BIA 1963) (remanding after presentation of new ground for deportation), the BIA may uphold an immigration judge's decision even after considering new evidence in favor of petitioner, see, e.g., Matter of Reyes, 16 I. & N. Dec. 475 (BIA 1978) (affirming decision by District Director after considering legal memoranda and affidavit of foreign lawyer). The BIA made an extensive review of the evidence presented before the immigration judge, as well as the newly-presented evidence in favor of petitioner's request for discretionary relief. It then made its determination that the immigration judge's denial of discretionary relief under section 212(c) did not constitute an abuse of discretion. We find no error in this determination. Accordingly, we uphold the deportation decision of the BIA. 20 The petition for review is denied and the deportation order is enforced.