## Facts

- Marin, a native and citizen of Colombia, became a lawful permanent resident on February 3, 1965.
- In March 1976, he pleaded guilty in New York to felony criminal sale of cocaine and received a mandatory minimum sentence.
- After serving about 30 months, the government initiated deportation proceedings based on the narcotics conviction under INA § 241(a)(11).
- Marin conceded deportability and sought discretionary relief under INA § 212(c), for which he was treated as statutorily eligible.
- Marin was single, childless, had no close U.S. family ties, had sporadic employment, offered no specific hardship evidence regarding return to Colombia, and remained incarcerated at the time of the application.

## Issues

1. What framework governs the exercise of discretion under INA § 212(c), including how favorable equities are weighed against adverse factors?
2. Whether a lawful permanent resident convicted of a serious narcotics offense, with limited equities and no hardship showing, warrants a favorable discretionary grant of § 212(c) relief.
3. Whether the government must delay initiating deportation proceedings to allow a confined or recently convicted applicant more time to show rehabilitation.

## Decision

- The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial of § 212(c) relief as a matter of discretion.
- The Board held that § 212(c) requires balancing adverse factors indicating undesirability as a permanent resident against social and humane considerations.
- The Board held that serious drug offenders must demonstrate “unusual” or “outstanding” countervailing equities before favorable discretion will be considered.
- The Board concluded Marin’s equities were insufficient to overcome the seriousness and recency of his cocaine-sale conviction and his continued confinement.
- The Board held the government was not required to withhold charging to improve an applicant’s opportunity to prove rehabilitation, and it would not review the rationale for the decision to commence proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Discretionary relief under INA § 212(c) requires a case-by-case balancing of adverse factors showing undesirability as a permanent resident against favorable social and humane considerations, to determine whether relief serves the country’s interests.
- The strength of equities required depends on the nature and circumstances of the waivable ground and any additional adverse factors.
- For convictions involving serious drug offenses, an applicant must show “unusual” or “outstanding” countervailing equities before a favorable exercise of discretion will be considered.
- Applicants with criminal records ordinarily must show rehabilitation; recency of conviction and confinement are relevant to rehabilitation and discretionary fitness, but there is no categorical bar based solely on confinement or recent conviction.
- The decision to institute deportation proceedings rests with the charging authority; adjudicators do not require delay to improve rehabilitation proof and do not review the charging rationale in the discretionary-relief adjudication.

## Conclusion

The Board affirmed deportability and denied § 212(c) relief, establishing that discretionary waivers require a balancing of adverse and favorable factors and that serious narcotics convictions demand unusual or outstanding equities, typically supported by rehabilitation, to justify favorable discretion.


In re Marin, 16 I. & N. Dec. 581 (B.I.A. 1978)