On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. INS No. A08-229-702
Before: Canby, Fernandez, and T. G. Nelson, Circuit Judges.
Anton Michael Ukalovich petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision finding Ukalovich deportable as charged and denying as a matter of discretion Ukalovich's application for waiver of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for abuse of discretion, Ayala-Chaves v. INS, 944 F.2d 638, 642 (9th Cir. 1991), and deny the petition for review.
On October 9, 1984, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") issued an order to show cause charging Ukalovich with being deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11), because he had been convicted of possession of heroin. Ukalovich conceded deportability and filed an application for waiver of deportation pursuant to section 212(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). The IJ found Ukalovich statutorily eligible for waiver of deportation but denied relief as a matter of discretion. The IJ determined that the equities in Ukalovich's favor were not outstanding or unusual and did not outweigh the negative factors, specifically Ukalovich's drug convictions and lack of rehabilitation. On appeal, the BIA affirmed.
The sole question in this petition is whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying Ukalovich's request for waiver of deportation.*fn1 Our review is limited to the BIA's decision. Charlesworth v. INS, 966 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1992). "In reviewing a BIA decision for abuse of discretion, we require that its stated reasons evidence its consideration of all relevant factors." Mattis v. INS, 774 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 1985). "We may set aside the BIA's denial of section 212(c) relief 'only if the [BIA] failed to support its Conclusions with a reasoned explanation based upon legitimate concerns.'" Ayala-Chavez, 944 F.2d at 642 (quoting Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 1987)).
In its order, the BIA first stated that the IJ considered all the relevant factors as set forth in previous BIA decisions.*fn2 The BIA then noted Ukalovich's criminal history, which includes a 1967 conviction for possession of marijuana, a 1974 conviction for forgery, a 1975 conviction for possession of heroin, and convictions in 1984 for aggravated assault and burglary while armed with a deadly weapon. The BIA appropriately found these multiple convictions to be "an extremely serious negative factor." See Ayala-Chavez, 944 F.2d at 642 (stating that BIA "adequately evaluated the gravity of [petitioner's] offenses by enumerating each and concluding that his convictions weighed heavily against him"). Moreover, the BIA correctly determined that Ukalovich's pattern of serious criminal activity required that he show outstanding equities. See id. at 641.
The BIA then noted the equities in Ukalovich's favor, including his long residence history beginning at a young age and his extensive family ties. The BIA found, however, that although some of Ukalovich's equities, such as his length of residence, were outstanding, they did not outweigh his negative factors, particularly his extensive criminal history. The BIA also found that any hardship Ukalovich's family would suffer was insufficient to outweigh that criminal history. Finally, the BIA noted that Ukalovich was unemployed, that he had spent ten of the last twenty years of his life in prison, and that he had never entered a drug rehabilitation program.
We are satisfied that the BIA considered the relevant factors and supported its Conclusions with reasoned explanations. See Ayala-Chaves, 944 F.2d at 642; Mattis, 774 F.2d at 967. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ukalovich's request for waiver of deportation.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.*fn3