Opinion ID: 6317301
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The existence and nature of the equities

Text: Kicking it off, Adeyanju takes issue with the BIA's reliance on one of its precedents, Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209 (BIA 2010), when it denied his reconsideration motion. In that case, the BIA said that [i]n order to determine, under de novo review, whether specific facts are sufficient to meet a legal standard . . . the Board has authority to give different weight to the evidence from that given by the Immigration Judge. Id. at 212. The BIA cited H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z- for the proposition that it could weigh evidence differently than an Immigration Judge in finding certain evidence to be a negative factor. We understand Adeyanju to offer four reasons why we should abrogate H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-'s conclusion that the BIA may give different weight to the evidence from that given by the Immigration