USCA1 Opinion

March 24, 1994

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________

No. 93-1908

LEVON A. GARABEDIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
__________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
George A. Pliakas
___________________

and

Peter A. Allen
________________

on

brief

for

petitioner.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
_______________
Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration
_________________
Litigation, Civil Division, and Michele Y. F. Sarko, Attorney,
____________________
Office of Immigration, Litigation Civil Division, on brief for
respondent.

__________________
__________________

Per Curiam.
__________
a final

order

affirming

of

by

application

a hearing

convicted of
of

Board

deportation.

following

and

of the
denial

petitioner's
order

Petitioner Levon Garabedian seeks review of

in

of Immigration

an

immigration

which he

was

was

possession of a controlled

two crimes

judge

for discretionary
Petitioner

of entering

Appeals

[IJ]

relief
ordered

found to

[BIA]
of

from an
deported

have

been

substance (cocaine)

dwelling with

intent to

commit larceny, all in violation of the laws of Rhode Island.

Petitioner

conceded that

241(a)(11) of

he

the Immigration

was deportable

under

and Nationality Act

section
[INA], 8

U.S.C.

1251(a)(11),

pursuant

to section

1182(c).

A denial

"unless

it

was

but

sought

212(c)

discretionary

of the

same

of discretionary
made

without

act, 8

U.S.C.

relief will

rational

relief

be upheld

explanation,

inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on

an impermissible basis."
Cir. 1985).

Williams v. INS, 773 F.2d 8, 9 (1st

________
___

We affirm.

Petitioner's main contention is that the BIA failed

to

provide

rational

discretionary relief.

explanation

Instead,

for

its

the BIA merely

denial

of

stated that

"[u]pon a review of the record, we affirm the [IJ's] decision

and dismiss
"few

the appeal."

errors in

were not

The

BIA did note that

the Immigration

significant

and

it found a

Judge's decision,

in some

instances

were

but they
to

the

-2-

benefit of the [petitioner]."

"did

not fail to consider

the [petitioner]."

The BIA also found that the IJ

any of the

evidence submitted by

While

the

BIA

has

the

discretionary

power

to

conduct de novo review of a decision of an IJ, it is under no

__ ____
obligation to do so.

Hazzard
_______

v. INS, 951 F.2d 435, 439-40 &

___

n.4 (1st Cir. 1991).

In this case, the BIA explicitly stated

that it was affirming the IJ's decision after having reviewed

the

record.

Since

petitioner

has

presented no

challenging the accuracy of this claim,

the BIA confirmed

we must presume that

the IJ's findings and adopted

his reasons

for denying the request for discretionary relief.

v. INS, 802 F.2d 89,
___
to the contrary,

95 n.8 (3d Cir. 1986)

IJ

BIA procedure in reviewing

contains

extensive factual

a detailed

findings, and a

his denial of relief.

the IJ

summary

See McLeod
___ ______

(absent evidence
decision of the

IJ "entitled to a presumption of regularity").

of the

evidence

of

The decision
the

evidence,

reasoned explanation

for

We are satisfied that this decision of

provides the rational explanation

required to uphold

the BIA's denial of discretionary relief.

See DeLeon v. INS,

___ ______
___

547 F.2d

142, 149 (2d

Cir. 1976) (even

discuss

claim, its

that it

adequately considered claim

though BIA did

affirmance of decision

not

of the

IJ shows

where most of

the IJ's

decision was

devoted to discussion of

434 U.S. 841

(1977); Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208,

________________
___

-3-

claim), cert. denied,

____ ______

1213 (9th Cir. 1983)

(even though BIA stated no

its decision, the decision

reasons for

by the IJ which the

BIA affirmed

"supplies the reasons required by the regulation").

Petitioner
failing

to

give

also
adequate

rehabilitation when
INS, 980 F.2d 814,
___
to

exercise

IJ

(and

favoring

weight

implicitly

the

but found

long

as

the

various

the

factors

v.

such as

the

evidence

of

other factors

petitioner's burden,

relevant

in

his

factors favoring

he deserved a

As this court

to the BIA and

of

deciding whether

with the

to meet

in

indicates that the

BIA) considered
it, along

erred

See Gouveia
___ _______

F.2d at 438, of showing that

considered, it belongs
weigh

relief.

The record

favorable exercise of discretion.1

as

evidence

must balance

relief, insufficient

repeatedly,

to

BIA

factors supporting application,

rehabilitation).

see Hazzard, 951

___ _______

the

816 (1st Cir. 1992) (in

discretion, BIA

rehabilitation

that

it denied him

deportation against
evidence of

claims

factors

has stated
have

not to this court

arriving

at

the

been
to

ultimate

decision

of

whether to

grant

discretionary

relief.

See
___

Gouveia, 980 F.2d at 819.

_______
Affirmed.
________

____________________
1. The immigration judge did question "whether
advances [were] primarily due to the pending
proceedings."
The record contains evidence
support this evaluation.
-4-

or not such
deportation
which would