## Facts

- Rigoberto Yepes-Prado was lawfully admitted as a permanent resident in 1974, lived in the United States for nearly twenty years, maintained steady employment, and had no other recorded arrests or convictions.
- In 1984, he was arrested in California for possession of 14.25 grams of heroin with intent to distribute.
- In 1986, he was convicted and sentenced to one year in county jail and two years’ probation.
- The INS initiated deportation proceedings based on the controlled-substance conviction under then-8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11).
- Yepes-Prado conceded deportability but sought discretionary relief from deportation under INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).
- The immigration judge acknowledged favorable equities but denied § 212(c) relief.
- The BIA found Yepes-Prado had “outstanding equities” and was eligible for relief but affirmed the denial without finding error in the immigration judge’s decision.
- Yepes-Prado petitioned for judicial review of the final order.

## Issues

1. Whether the BIA abused its discretion by affirming denial of INA § 212(c) relief after finding the petitioner had “outstanding equities.”
2. Whether the agency misapplied the § 212(c) balancing framework by failing to weigh favorable factors in proportion to the offense and by relying on marginal or improperly evaluated adverse considerations.
3. Whether the denial lacked a rational, record-based explanation sufficient for judicial review.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review in part by vacating the BIA’s decision and remanding for further proceedings.
- The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the denial of § 212(c) relief.
- The court concluded that, given the BIA’s finding of “outstanding equities,” the agency did not adequately explain why relief was denied.
- The court faulted the agency for relying on adverse considerations that were not sufficiently tied to the record or properly weighed under the governing balancing test.

## Legal Principles

- INA § 212(c) authorizes discretionary relief for eligible lawful permanent residents; the decision requires case-specific balancing of favorable “social and humane considerations” against adverse factors showing undesirability as a permanent resident.
- When the agency finds “unusual or outstanding equities,” it must give them weight commensurate with the gravity of the offense before denying relief.
- Discretionary immigration decisions remain reviewable for abuse of discretion and must rest on a rational explanation grounded in the administrative record.
- Courts may correct legal error and ensure the agency applies its stated standards, while generally limiting review to the existing administrative record rather than making new factual findings.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded because the agency, despite finding “outstanding equities,” failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned, record-supported explanation for denying § 212(c) relief and improperly applied its own balancing framework.


Yepes-Prado v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 10 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir. 1993)