BUSCEMI

Interim Decision #3058




                              MATTER OF BUSCEMI

                          In Deportation Proceedings

                                     A-30820784

                       Decided by Board April 18, 1988

(1) One or more of the adverse discretionary factors noted in Matter of Maria, 16
  I&N Dee. 581 (BIA 1978), may ultimately be determinative of whether section
  212(c) relief is granted in an individual case.
(2) The necessity of demonstrating unusual or outstanding equities as part of as ap-
  plication for section 212(c) relief is not exclusively triggered by serious crimes in-
  volving cunt.rulled substaucas, such as the trafficking or sale of drugs, but rather,
  the gravity of the offense, per se, must be examined.
(3) The need to show unusual or outstanding equities in a section 212(c) case may be
  mandated because of a single serious crime or because of a succession of criminal
  acts winch together establish a pattern of serious criminal misconduct.
(4) An alien who demonstrates unusual or outstanding equities, as may be required
  in a section 212(c) matter, merely satisfies the threshold test for having a favor-
  able exercise of discretion considered in his case; such a showing does not compel
  that discretion be exercised in his favor. Matter of Marin, supra, clarified.
(5) Rehabilitation is one of the favorable considerations in the discretionary evalua-
  tion with respect to section 212(c) relief; and, in fact, an applicant for relief with a
  criminal record will ordinarily be required to make a showing of rehabilitation
  before relief will be considered as a matter of discretion. Matter of Marin, supra,
  clarified.
(6) Notwithstanding the presence of an unusual or outstanding equity, the Board of
  Immigration Appeals denied section 212(c) relief in the exercise of discretion, be-
  cause of the serious nature of the alien's criminal convictions and his failure to
  establish rehabilitation.
CHARGE
 Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX11) [

(aX11)1—Convicted of controlled
                      substance violation
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                             ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
 Reverend Robert Vitaglione                           William F. Jankun
 Accredited Representative                            General Attorney
 856 Pacific Street
 Brooklyn, New York 11238                              Charles Sanders
                                                       Acting Appellate Counsel

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members

                                          628
                                             Interim Decision #3058

   In a decision dated August 20, 1987, the immigration judge found
the respondent deportable on the charge set forth above and denied
his application for relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 

(c) (1982). The respondent has
appealed. The appeal will be dismissed.
   The respondent is a single, 26-year-old native of Italy and lawful
permanent resident of the United States. On. March 14, 1983, he
was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York of
the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance,
heroin. At the deportation hearing, the respondent admitted the al-
legations in the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form
1-221) and conceded deportability under section 241(a)(11) of the
Act, 

(a)(11) (Supp. IV 1986), for having been convict-
ed, at any time after entry, of a violation of, or a conspiracy to vio-
late, any law or regulation of a state, the United States, or a for-
eign country relating to a controlled substance. We find that de-
portability has been established by clear, unequivocal, and convinc-
ing evidence. See 

(a) (1988); Woodby v. INS, 3R5
U.S. 276 (1966). The only issue on appeal is whether the immigra-
tion judge properly denied the respondent's application for a
waiver under section 212(c) of the Act.
   The record reflects that the respondent has resided in the United
States since 1970, when he was admitted for lawful permanent resi-
dence. It further indicates that the respondent's immediate family,
consisting of his parents and four siblings, all reside in this country
either as United States citizens or lawful permanent residents. The
respondent's mother, who testified in his behalf, stated that her
son has helped to support the family and has acted as a father to
his siblings since her husband abandoned them in 1975.
   The respondent testified that he was forced to attend primary
school on a part time basis en that he could work to earn money for
                -


his family. He further advised that he dropped out of high school
to attend a vocational school in automotive mechanics and then, in
1976, began work as a mechanic. He indicated that he would give
his mother a large portion of his paycheck each week. The record
also reveals that the respondent's mother and sister are currently
employed on a full-time basis and that the family is self-sufficient
despite the inability of the respondent to contribute toward its sup-
port due to his incarceration.
   The respondent advised that he would feel very uncomfortable if
deported to Italy and that he wishes to remain with his family in
this country. He stated that he was last in Italy in 1980, when he
visited for a 4-month period, and that he did not like it. He testi-
fied that, although he was able to find work in Italy as a mechanic,
                                 029
Interim Decision #3058

he was unable to earn sufficient money to support his family, who
had accompanied him, and, therefore, they all returned to the
United States. 1 He stated that, while he probably would be able to
find employment in Italy if deported, the job would not pay well.
Moreover, he advised that, although he has uncles and aunts in
Italy, they would be hostile toward him because of his criminal
record. The testimony of the respondent, his mother, and his sister,
who also testified in his behalf, revealed that they have a close re-
lationship. According to this testimony, they converse on the tele-
phone frequently, and the respondent's mother and sister visit him
in prison every month. The respondent also indicated that his
father has visited him once in prison.
  With respect to his criminal history, the respondent testified that
he began using drugs in 1980, and that he acquired a 60- to 70-
dollar-a-day habit. He informed the immigration judge that, despite
his 1983 attempted drug sale conviction, he never sold drugs and
he accepted a sale conviction only because he was naive. The re-
spondent testified that he was sentenced to 5 years' probation for
his offense. He also stated that, subsequent to this conviction, he
entered a drug rehabilitation program for 6 months and did not
take drugs during this period. The respondent's testimony in this
regard is supported by a copy of a letter, dated May 31, 1985, from
the residential coordinator of a live-in drug rehabilitation facility,
who indicates that the respondent stayed at the facility from Feb-
ruary 23, 1984, until August 1, 1984, and that he successfully main-
tained a drug-free state during this time. The respondent further
testified, however, that he began taking drugs again 4 months after
he left the program and that he participated in a robbery in order
to support his habit. The record reflects, in fact, that the respond-
ent committed this crime on October 12, 1984, approximately 2 1 2
months after completing the drug rehabilitation program. Accord-
ing to the respondent, he and four other men, who had two guns
between them, entered a house for the purpose of stealing valua-
bles and, in the process, tied up a maid but did not harm her. The
record shows that, as a result of this incident, the respondent was
convicted of attempted robbery on May 3, 1985, and was sentenced
to an indeterminate prison term of 3 and 1/2 to 7 years. Moreover,
the respondent advised that, after his robbery arrest, the probation
with respect to his 1983 conviction was revoked, and he was sen-

  1 According to the respondent, this was his family's second attempt to reestablish
themselves in Italy. He stated that his family went to Italy in 1974 for a 1-year
period, but that they were unsuccessful and were forced to return to the United
States.

                                        630
                                             Interim Decision #3058

 tented to 6 months in prison. The respondent's inmate record card,
 a copy of which is contained in the record, indicates that while in-
 carcerated the respondent committed several infractions, such as
 damaging state property, possessing contraband, disobedience, and
 being out of place, for which he received sanctions of varying sever-
 ity, from reprimands to loss of privileges. The respondent testified
 that these violations and punishments were not serious.
    The respondent advised that his past transgressions were the
 result of his drug abuse and his association with individuals who
had a bad influence on him. He stated that he began taking drugs
 to deal with the pressure that he felt from having to assume adult
 responsibilities after his father left. According to the respondent,
he will not be involved, in any future wrongdoing because he real-
 izes that it is the incorrect path to pursue and that he eventually
would find himself in prison again. He testified that the last time
he took drugs was in November 1984 and that he believes that he
is rehabilitated. He related that, while in prison, he has participat-
ed in drug rehabilitation, violence awareness, vocational, and edu-
cational programs. The respondent also indicated that he has been
 employed in prison, first as a mechanic and then as a barber. He
further stated that his former employer has offered to rehire him
as a mechanic when he is released.
   Finally, the respondent submitted copies of letters and affidavits
from his former neighbors and employer testifying to his good
character. He also provided a copy of a letter, apparently from the
pastor of his church, which states that the respondent's rehabilita-
tion would not be aided if he is returned to Italy and that the re-
spondent should be permitted to remain in this country with his
family.
   The immigration judge denied the respondent's application for a
section 212(c) waiver in her discretion, concluding that the respond-
ent had not demonstrated the outstanding equities and genuine re-
habilitation necessary to merit relief in the face of a serious crimi-
nal record. The immigration judge noted that the respondent's ex-
pressed feeling of discomfort in returning to Italy if deported, com-
bined with the emotional hardship to his family members, did not
rise to the level of outstanding equities. In fmding that the re-
spondent had failed to demonstrate rehabilitation, the immigration
judge observed that, although the respondent had participated in
various programs while incarcerated, he also had committed sever-
al infractions.
  The respondent's contentions on appeal were presented through
his Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Form
290A), his appeal brief, and oral argument. He argues that the im-
                                 631
Interim Decision #3058

migration judge abused her discretion in refusing to grant section
212(e) relief. He maintains that he will be forced into a state of ho-
melessness and destitution if required to return to Italy, conditions
which he asserts amount to unusual and outstanding hardship. He
points out that, as he was unsuccessful in his attempt to reestab-
lish himself in Italy in 1980 when he had the presence of his family
for support, he is unlikely to succeed by himself if deported. Fur-
thermore, the respondent alleges that his family will suffer emo-
tional and economic privation if he is deported.
   In addition, the respondent contends that the immigration judge
erroneously found that rehabilitation had not been established. In
support of this contention, the respondent alleges that he was not
involved in any wrongdoing for a 2-year period (apparently the
time between his 1983 and 1985 convictions). lie also states that he
made great efforts to rehabilitate himself by participating in vari-
ous prison programs. Finally, he emphasizes that he has worked
while incarcerated and that his prison record contains only rela-
tively minor infractions. With respect to his ability to reintegrate
himself into society, the respondent stresses his post-release offer of
employment, his violence awareness counseling, and the fact that
he will be under intense parole supervision for a number of years.
As a final argument, the respondent suggests that, because the de-
portation hearing was conducted in a state prison environment, the
immigration judge may have been more conservative in exercising
her discretion than she would have been in a more neutral setting.
  The Immigration. and Naturalization Service presented its con-
tentions on appeal at oral argument. It argues that the decision of
the immigration judge is correct and that the respondent has not
demonstrated the unusual or outstanding equities necessary to
overcome his two serious convictions and history of drug addiction.
Furthermore, the Service asserts that, far from showing rehabilita-
tion, the respondent appears to be a likely recidivist.
  Section 212(c) of the Act provides that aliens lawfully admitted
for permanent residence who temporarily proceed abroad voluntar-
ily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning
to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of 7 consecutive years, may be
admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard
to certain specified grounds of exclusion. In light of our decision in
Matter of Silva, 

 (BIA 1976), a lawful permanent
resident is prima facie eligible for relief from deportation under
section 212(c), even though he has not proceeded abroad subsequent
to the acts which rendered him deportable. See Francis v. INS, 

 (2d Cir. 1976).
                                  632
                                             Interim Decision #3058

  Section 212(c) of the Act, however, does not provide an indis-
criminate waiver for all who demonstrate statutory eligibility for
such relief_ Instead, the Attorney General or his delegate is re-
quired to determine as a matter of discretion whether an applicant
merits the relief sought, and the alien bears the burden of demon-
strating that his application merits favorable consideration. Matter
of Martin, 

 (MA 1978).
   The exercise of discretion in a particular case necessarily re-
quires consideration of all the facts and circumstances involved.
There must be a balancing of the social and humane considerations
presented in an alien's favor against the adverse factors evidencing
his undesirability as a permanent resident. The Board has enunci-
ated numerous factors to be considered in determining whether or
not to grant section 212(c) relief. See Matter of Maria, supra. Favor-
able considerations have been found to include such factors as
family ties within the United States, residence of long duration in
this country (particularly when the inception of residence occurred
at a young age), evidence of hardship to the respondent and his
family if deportation occurs, service in this country's armed forces,
a history of employment, the existence of property or business ties,
evidence of value and service to the community, proof of genuine
rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and other evidence attest-
ing to a respondent's good character. Id. Amdng the factors deemed
adverse to an alien are the nature and underlying circumstances of
the exclusion ground at issue, the presence of additional significant
violations of this country's immigration laws, the existence of a
criminal record and, if so, its nature, recency, and seriousness, and
the presence of other evidence indicative of a respondent's bad
character or undesirability as a permanent resident of this country.
Id. Moreover, as we noted in Marin, one or more of these adverse
considerations may ultimately be determinative of whether section
212(c) relief is in fact granted in an individual case. Id.
  We have also pointed out that, as the negative factors grow more
serious, it becomes incumbent upon the alien to introduce addition-
al offsetting favorable evidence, which in some cases may have to
involve unusual or outstanding equities. Id. Such a heightened
showing is required when an alien has been convicted of a serious
drug offense, particularly one relating to the trafficking or sale of
drugs. Id. The necessity of demonstrating unusual or outstanding
equities is not exclusively triggered by serious crimes involving
controlled substances, however_ Rafher, as we indicated in Marin,
one must examine the gravity of the offense, per se. Id. In addition,
such a showing may be mandated because of a single serious crime,
as in Marin, or because of a succession of criminal acts, which to-
Interim Decision #3058

gether establish a pattern of serious criminal misconduct. Finally,
we observe that an alien who demonstrates unusual or outstanding
equities, as required, merely satisfies the threshold test for having
a favorable exercise of discretion considered in his case; such a
showing does not compel that discretion be exercised in his favor.
  In regard to the adverse factors in this case, we note that the re-
spondent, an admitted drug user, has been convicted of two serious
offenses, one involving the attempted sale of heroin, and the other
entailing attempted robbery, in which firearms were carried and
an innocent bystander physically restrained. We further observe
that the second crime was committed while the respondent was
still under probation for his first offense. Given the serious nature
of these crimes and their relative recency, it is necessary for the
respondent to demonstrate unusual or outstanding equities in
order for a favorable exercise of discretion to be considered.
  After careful review, we conclude that, although the respondent's
case warrants our consideration as to whether favorable discretion
should be exercised, we find that, after the equities are balanced, a
discretionary grant of section 212(c) relief is not merited. In his
favor, the respondent has shown that he has resided in this coun-
try for some 17 years 2 and that such residence began at a young
age. Moreover, the record reflects that the respondent's entire im-
mediate family resides in this country either as United States citi-
zens or lawful permanent residents. Furthermore, the respondent
has demonstrated that he is closely tied to his family and that all
would suffer emotional hardship if the respondent were deported.
Finally, we note that the respondent appears to have a history of
gainful employment and that he was forced to grow up under diffi-
cult circumstances. We consider these to be outstanding equities,
particularly with respect to the respondent's 17 years of residence
in this country since age 9.
   Contrary to the respondent's assertions, however, we are not per-
suaded that he will become homeless and destitute if deported to
Italy. The record indicates that he found employment in Italy as a
mechanic in 1980, and he testified that he probably would be able
to find work there again, though it would not pay well. In addition,
the respondent offers no evidence to support his conjecture that he
will be rejected by his Italian relatives because of his criminal

  2 The respondent indicated that he and his family made two efforts, in 1974 and
1980, to reestablish themselves in Italy and that, in this regard, he remained abroad
for periods of 12 and 4 months, respectively. In view of our disposition of this
matter, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the respondent's attempts to re-
establish himself abroad constitute an abandonment of his lawful permanent resi-
dent status, thus rendering him statutorily ineligible for section 212(c) relief.

                                        634
                                             Interim Decision #3058

 record, or that, even if this were to be the case, he would be unable
to house himself without their assistance. Although the respondent
maintains that previous family attempts to resettle in Italy ended
in failure and that, therefore, he will be unable to succeed there by
himself, we note that the specific reasons offered for the most
recent failure were that he could not earn enough money to sup-
port his family and that he did not like Italy. We observe that, if
the respondent is deported, he will only have to support himself.
Moreover, we are not convinced that the respondent will be inher-
ently unable to fashion a life for himself in Italy simply because he
finds that country disagreeable. With respect to the alleged finan-
cial hardship to the respondent's family, we note that his mother
and sister are presently employed on a full time basis and that his
                                             -


family have managed to support themselves while the respondent
has been in prison.
   We also are not satisfied that the respondent has demonstrated
rehabilitation, which can be another favorable consideration in the
discretionary evaluation. In. fact, an applicant for relief under sec-
tion 212(c) of the Act with a criminal record will ordinarily be re-
quired to make a showing of rehabilitation before relief will be con-
sidered as a matter of discretion. Matter of Marie, supra. In evalu-
ating the respondent's record in this regard, we note that he was
convicted of a serious drug offense in March 1983, for which he was
sentenced to 5 years' probation, and that he completed a drug reha-
bilitation program subsequent to this conviction. Yet in October
1984, while still on probation, the respondent perpetrated his
second serious offense, attempted robbery, for which he received a
prison sentence and had his probation revoked. Moreover, we ob-
serve that the respondent gave contradictory testimony as to the
length of time he was able to remain free of drugs. Although he
testified that he did not begin taking drugs again until 4 months
after the end of the substance abuse program, i.e., November 1984,
he also stated at the hearing that he joined in the October 12, 1984,
robbery scheme in order to support his ongoing drug habit. Demon-
strably, the fact of his probation and participation in a substance
abuse program had no rehabilitative effect. Given this history, we
cannot conclude that his expressed reformation and participation
in prison programs and prison employment adequately establish
genuine rehabilitation.
   Even considering the outstanding equities which the respondent
has boon able to establish, we do not find that granting relief is
warranted or in the best interests of this country. In reaching this
conclusion, we have evaluated the respondent's equities against the
serious adverse factors present in his case and our determination
                                 635
Interim. Decision #3058

that he has not demonstrated rehabilitation. While his deportation
may well involve hardship to himself and certainly much unhappi-
ness for his family, the responsibility for this result rests with the
respondent alone.
  As a final matter, we conclude that the respondent has failed to
establish that he was prejudiced because his hearing was conducted
in a prison environment. He has offered no specific examples as to
how the immigration judge may have been biased by the setting.
After a review of the record, we are satisfied that the conduct of
the hearing and the immigration judge's decision were fair and im-
partial_
  Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
  ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.




                                 636