C-V-T
22 I. & N. Dec. 7 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretionary standards for granting cancellation of removal to a lawful permanent resident under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act are the same as those previously used for relief under former section 212(c), requiring a balancing of adverse factors against social and humane considerations.
Facts:
- C-V-T-, a native and citizen of Vietnam, served in the Vietnamese Marine Corps from 1973 to 1975.
- After the Communist takeover in 1975, he was imprisoned for a year, forced into heavy labor, and later fled the country after a conflict with police in 1981.
- C-V-T- was admitted to the United States as a refugee in March 1983 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991.
- He established a life in the U.S., working as a mechanic and taxi driver in Alaska and performing some volunteer work in his community.
- In 1997, C-V-T- acted as a middleman in a single cocaine transaction for a friend, for which he was not paid.
- He was subsequently convicted of misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree in Alaska and sentenced to 90 days in jail.
- After his arrest, C-V-T- cooperated with police, leading to the arrest of the drug supplier, and the prosecuting attorney wrote a letter recommending that he be allowed to remain in the U.S.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against C-V-T- in June 1997.
- In proceedings before an Immigration Judge (the court of first instance), C-V-T- conceded he was removable for having been convicted of a controlled substance violation.
- C-V-T- applied for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- The Immigration Judge found C-V-T- met the statutory eligibility requirements for the relief.
- On July 25, 1997, the Immigration Judge denied the application as a matter of discretion and ordered C-V-T- removed from the United States to Vietnam.
- C-V-T- (the respondent) appealed the Immigration Judge's discretionary denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the discretionary standards and balancing test developed for relief under the former section 212(c) of the Act, as articulated in Matter of Marin, applicable to applications for cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents under the newly enacted section 240A(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Board Member Holmes
Yes. The general standards developed in Matter of Marin for the exercise of discretion under the predecessor statute, section 212(c), are applicable to the exercise of discretion for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a). This requires an adjudicator to balance the adverse factors evidencing an alien's undesirability as a permanent resident against the social and humane considerations presented on their behalf. The court reasoned that since section 240A(a) replaced section 212(c), it is appropriate to apply the well-established discretionary framework to this new form of relief. In this case, C-V-T-'s significant equities—including his 15 years of residence, admission as a refugee, strong work history, and the circumstances of his single, non-aggravated offense—outweighed the negative factor of his criminal conviction. The mitigating circumstances, such as his cooperation with police and the prosecutor's favorable recommendation, further supported a grant of relief.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it established continuity in the law following the major reforms of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). By formally adopting the discretionary balancing test from Matter of Marin for the new cancellation of removal remedy, the Board of Immigration Appeals ensured that decades of precedent regarding waivers of deportability remained applicable. This provided immediate and clear guidance to immigration judges and practitioners on how to adjudicate these claims, preventing a period of legal uncertainty. The decision solidifies the principle that discretionary relief in immigration law involves a holistic, case-by-case evaluation of an individual's entire life in the U.S., rather than focusing solely on the act that made them removable.
