MARIN
16 I. & N. Dec. 581 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An application for discretionary relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a balancing of adverse factors against social and humane considerations to determine if granting relief is in the best interest of the country. Applicants convicted of a serious drug offense must demonstrate 'unusual or outstanding' countervailing equities to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
Facts:
- Jorge Marin, a native and citizen of Colombia, was admitted to the United States for lawful permanent residence on February 3, 1965.
- In March 1976, Marin pleaded guilty in a New York State court to the felony charge of criminal sale of cocaine.
- On April 29, 1976, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year to life in prison.
- Marin was single, had no children, and had no relatives residing in the United States.
- His closest relatives, a brother and sister, lived in Colombia.
- Marin had a sporadic employment history in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- While Marin was incarcerated, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an Order to Show Cause, initiating deportation proceedings.
- At a hearing before an immigration judge on July 20, 1977, Marin conceded deportability.
- Marin applied for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- The immigration judge, in a decision dated August 23, 1977, found Marin deportable and denied his application for a 212(c) waiver as a matter of discretion.
- The immigration judge ordered Marin deported to Colombia.
- Marin (appellant) appealed the immigration judge's denial of his 212(c) application to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an immigration judge abuse their discretion by requiring an alien with a serious drug conviction to demonstrate 'unusual or outstanding equities' to qualify for a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - Board Member Milhollan
No. An immigration judge does not abuse their discretion by requiring a heightened showing of 'unusual or outstanding equities' for an alien convicted of a serious drug offense, as the decision to grant a section 212(c) waiver involves balancing adverse factors against social and humane considerations. The immigration judge must weigh adverse factors (like the nature and seriousness of the crime) against favorable considerations (like family ties, long residence, and hardship). As the negative factors grow more serious, it is incumbent upon the applicant to introduce additional, offsetting favorable evidence, which in some cases may need to be unusual or outstanding. Given the statutory disfavor for drug offenses, requiring a showing of unusual or outstanding countervailing equities for applicants convicted of serious drug crimes, particularly trafficking, is proper. Here, Marin's 12 years of residence were insufficient to offset his serious drug conviction, especially given his lack of other equities like close family ties in the U.S.
Analysis:
This decision established the seminal balancing test for adjudicating section 212(c) waiver applications, which became the standard framework for this form of relief. It codified the various favorable and unfavorable factors that immigration authorities must consider. Critically, Matter of Marin created a heightened standard for applicants with serious criminal records, particularly drug offenses, requiring them to show 'unusual or outstanding equities.' This precedent significantly shaped immigration law by making it more difficult for individuals with serious convictions to avoid deportation, while also confirming that even incarcerated aliens must be given a reasonable opportunity to apply for relief.
