Professional Documents
Culture Documents
____________________
No. 92-1008
JAVIER A. MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
____________________
decision
denying an
212(c)
U.S.C.
I.
of
the
Board of
Immigration
application for a
of the
Immigration and
Appeals
(Board)
waiver of deportation
under
Naturalization Act
(Act), 8
1182(c).
BACKGROUND
__________
Petitioner
citizen of
United
the
States on
is
a twenty-seven-year-old
Dominican Republic.
a
two-year
tourist
He
first entered
visa
in
remained
obtained
lawful
permanent
resident
native and
status.
1974,
the
but
In 1983 he
In
1990,
petitioner was
of
heroin,
and
driving
to
endanger.
a preliminary
been convicted
was,
therefore,
He
was
immigration judge
a
212(c)
discretionary
of
the
(IJ) granted
waiver of
Act.
The
because
petitioner
criminal activity
. . .
and . .
substance laws
also
found
to
and
be
petitioner's application
deportation
Immigration
"has
he had
conceded that
violating controlled
deportable.
these
deportation proceedings.
hearing, petitioner
of
Following
and
under
section
Naturalization
significant history
. has engaged
the
of
in criminal
-2-
DISCUSSION
__________
The
Board's
decision whether
to
grant a
waiver
under
section
212(c)
discretionary
whether the
of
decision
discretionary.
of
the
Board,
In
we
reviewing
determine
discretion.
1991).
is
Accordingly, we
only
or an abuse
the Board
the
impermissible basis."
Board's
substantial evidence
factfinding,
standard.
we
do
so
Blackwood v. INS,
_________
___
the Board
"such
supported by
Williams v.
________
from established
under
we
the
803 F.2d
facts found by
relevant evidence
as
this
proceeding,
petitioner
makes
several
Petitioner argues
was required
to
-3-
It is well
and make
petitioner's credibility.
F.2d 1244,
Cordoba-Chaves v.
______________
INS, 946
___
Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS,
__________________
___
v. INS,
___
Upon
appeal
to
the
decision.
The
the
Accordingly,
respondent's
any
new
petitioner
submitted
hearing if it did
Board declined
Board
not
to consider
the
release
evidence of
from
prison.
rehabilitation,
even if
not agree
the Board's
failure to consider
remand
petitioner's additional
the
case
for
further
discretion.
To
the
extent
hearing
that
the
was
evidence or
an
abuse
evidence
to
of
repeated
v. Department of Justice,
______________________
759 F.2d
450,
And as
period of time.
drugs, the
short
duration would
rehabilitation was
not
reasonable.
evidence of
conclusively establish
See Blackwood, 803
___ _________
his
F.2d at
1167.
3.
Petitioner
claims
that
the
Board
made numerous
factual and
legal errors.
assignments of
To the extent
conflicting evidence or
at 620;
that petitioner's
Joseph v.
______
INS, 909
___
merit.
F.2d
Board weighted
See Consolo, 383
___ _______
605, 607
(1st Cir.
1990); Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1141 (5th Cir. 1984).
_________
___
We discuss only the remaining asseverations.
First, petitioner claims that the Board
discretion by
history
failing to find
abused its
that petitioner's
In its
employment
considered in
212(c)
waiver,
determining whether
but
it
failed
to
history.
to grant
make
any
the section
mention
Assuming the
of
Board's
804
534,
540
(9th
-5-
Cir.
1986),
the
evidence
submitted
history
in
this case
shows that
petitioner's employment
his
employers
was
or
unknown.
imprisoned, petitioner
five
months.
From
1986
was engaged
During the
to
1990,
when he
in lawful work
for only
he spent several
the IJ.
oral
the Board
the hearing.
petitioner
stated simply,
In arguing to
a favorable factor,
and incorrectly,
that he
"has a
He
attempt
discuss the
to elaborate
on his
allegation or
to
made no
A party
developed argumentation
Board disregards
INS, 956 F.2d 223,
___
is not
the passing
entitled to complain
reference.
See
___
to consider petitioner's
if the
Nunez-Pena v.
__________
Khalaf v. INS,
______
___
-6-
in
the
aspects
proceedings
properly before
of
each
Where, as
will not
to the
We
have
carefully
(b) supported by
consideration
findings, we
below.
petitioner's
it and
by
which
were
(a)
specific evidence.
require that it
the
given
made adequate
address specifically
petitioner presented.
See
___
Vergara-Molina v. INS,
______________
___
956 F.2d
F.2d 1317,
1321 (5th Cir. 1985); cf. Sanchez v. INS, 755 F.2d 1158, 1160
___ _______
___
(5th Cir. 1985) ("Thus, our review is limited to ascertaining
whether
limited
discretion of
the Board by
smaller subfactors
given by the
are we free
Board to a
to undermine the
and requiring
the Board to
into ever
consider the
errors
together
they
reversal
of
petitioner's
petitioner
are
insignificant
represent
the
argues
Board's
that,
standing
"significant
if
alone,
errors"
decision.
individual assignments
even
the
taken
requiring
Here,
however,
of error are
devoid of
-7-
Crespo-Gomez v. Richard,
____________
_______
Cir. 1986).
case
the ground
the discretionary
facts of
this
435;
Blackwood, 803
_________
F.2d 1165;
Failure
to
Articulate
Guidelines for
___________________________________________
When an Applicant's Equities Meet the
_____________________________________
Standard
________
Determining
____________
Board's
________
Petitioner
claims
that
arbitrarily
outstanding
equities
"guideline[s]"
v.
by this
acted
shown unusual or
failed
to articulate
in section 212(c)
court, see,
___
cases has
e.g., Hazzard,
____ _______
951
F.2d at
225.
has
also
equities" standard
because it
The Board's
Board
he had not
the
CONCLUSION
__________
-8-
We need go no
presents no
substantial
further.
Inasmuch as
question, we
this petition
summarily affirm
the
-9-