Opinion ID: 573876
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Outstanding Equities

Text: 11 The BIA determination that the outstanding equities demonstrated by petitioner were insufficient to overcome his four drug convictions did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Neither the BIA, Matter of Buscemi, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 635, nor this court, see Joseph, 909 F.2d at 607 (denial of § 212(c) relief held proper despite BIA finding of outstanding equities), has ever held that a finding of outstanding equities compels allowance of a waiver of excludability. Rather, the BIA is required to evaluate each individual petitioner's desirability as a permanent resident and to provide a rational explanation of its decision. In the present case, following a thorough review of the record, the BIA found that petitioner did not merit discretionary relief, despite the outstanding equities, due to his numerous drug convictions. As there was no abuse of discretion in the BIA's balancing of the favorable and unfavorable factors relating to the petitioner, we decline to interpose the more lenient disposition sought by petitioner. See id. at 607. 12 Petitioner contends, nonetheless, that a denial of discretionary relief, due solely to his drug convictions, distorts the intent of Congress. Although petitioner concedes that the immigration laws clearly reflect the strong Congressional policy against lenient treatment of drug trafficking offenders, Blackwood v. INS, 803 F.2d 1165, 1167 (11th Cir.1986); Ayala-Chavez v. INS, 944 F.2d 638, 641 (9th Cir.1991), he contends that Congress nevertheless intended that otherwise inadmissible aliens who have been convicted of drug offenses remain eligible for a waiver of excludability. According to petitioner, the BIA effectively precludes drug offenders from a meaningful opportunity to obtain discretionary relief. Petitioner insists that he demonstrated all that could reasonably be required to merit discretionary relief, since the BIA found that he possessed outstanding equities and, according to petitioner, implicitly found that he was rehabilitated. We must disagree. 13 First, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the BIA made no rehabilitation finding, either explicit or implicit. The BIA did state that respondent testified that he is sincerely remorseful for his past criminal behavior and maintains that he is completely rehabilitated. But the BIA made no determination that rehabilitation had taken place, nor did it take issue with the contrary finding explicitly made by the immigration judge--that petitioner had not demonstrated rehabilitation. Second, the BIA's determination that the outstanding equities were insufficient to overcome petitioner's four drug convictions was in no sense tantamount to a disentitlement of drug offenders generally, or petitioner in particular, to a meaningful opportunity to seek discretionary relief. The BIA is required to make a case-by-case determination. See, e.g., Marin, 16 I. & N. Dec. at 584 (it has been held that each case must be judged on its own merits). Drug offenders demonstrating either more outstanding equities or less serious criminal records might well be accorded discretionary relief. The BIA did no more than determine that relief was not warranted in petitioner's case. We find no distortion of congressional intent.