U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Holguin, Iliana Noemi DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - ELP
Dunbar, Armendariz, Hegeman & Holguin 11541 Montana Ave , Suite 0
PLLC El Paso, TX 79936
501 E. Nevada Ave.
El Paso, TX 79902

Name: CAJIGAS SIFUENTES, RODOLFO A 098-657-014

Date of this notice: 6/29/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Cynthia L. Crosby
Deputy Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Cole, Patricia A.
O'Connor, Blair
Wendtland, Linda S.

'.:3t::i1w;.1rz/,.
Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/

Cite as: Teresa Moreno-Gonzalez, A200 946 740 (BIA June 29, 2017)
A098 657 014

It is undisputed that the respondent is statutorily eligible to adjust his status pursuant to section
245(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the sole question on appeal is whether the respondent merits this
relief in the exercise of discretion (I.J. at 3-13). Where an applicant for adjustment of status under
section 245 of the Act presents adverse discretionary information, it is necessary to
offset this negative information with countervailing positive equities. See Matter of Arai,
13 I&N Dec. 494, 496 (BIA 1970). In the absence of adverse factors, adjustment of status will

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

ordinarily be granted, although such a grant is also in the exercise of discretion. See id.

Among the factors deemed adverse to an alien are "the nature and underlying circumstances
of the [ground of inadmissibility], the presence of additional significant violations of this country's
immigration laws, the existence of a criminal record and, if so, its nature, recency, and seriousness,
and the presence of other evidence indicative of a respondent's bad character or undesirability as
a permanent resident of this country." See Matter of Marin, 16 l&N Dec. 581, 584 (BIA 1978).
Favorable considerations "include such factors as family ties within the United States, residence
of long duration in this country (particularly when the inception of residence occurred [at an early
age]), evidence of hardship to the respondent and [his] family if [removal] occurs, service in this
country's Armed Forces, a history of employment, the existence of property or business ties,
evidence of value and service to the community, proof of a genuine rehabilitation if a criminal
record exists, and other evidence attesting to a respondent's good character." See id. at 584-85.

Upon de novo review, we agree with the Immigration Judge that the respondent's criminal
history is a negative factor in his case (I.J. at 10-13). The respondent was arrested on five separate
occasions between 2003 and 2012: 1) driving while under the influence ("DWI") in 2003,
2) battery against a household member in 2005, 3) aggravated battery with great bodily harm in
2008, 4) public affray in 2010, and 5) shoplifting in 2012 (I.J. at 3-4; Exh. 2A, Tab Cat 60). The
DWI offense was dismissed without prejudice because the arresting officer retired and pre-trial
interviews were not completed before trial (Exh. 2A, Tab D at 61; I.J. at 5). The battery against
a household member charge was dismissed because the respondent was granted voluntary
departure in removal proceedings and supposedly was not going to be in the United States any
longer (Exh. 2A, Tab D at 64; I.J. at 5-6; Tr. at 48-49). The aggravated battery with great bodily
harm charge was dismissed without prejudice (Exh. 2A, Tab D at 67-69; I.J. at 6), and the public
affray charge also was dismissed (Exh. 2A, Tab D at 70; I.J. at 6). The respondent served some
time in jail for the shoplifting charge, but it was ultimately dismissed after the respondent agreed
in pre-trial proceedings to perform community service (Exh. 2A, Tab D at 71; I.J. at 6-7; Tr. at 53,
88-91). We note that none of these arrests resulted in a conviction.

In contrast, there are several significant positive equities in the respondent's case (I.J. at 7,
9-10). The respondent and his wife have been married since 2001 and she is a naturalized
United States citizen. They have three United States citizen children, ages 18, 16, and 5 at the
time of the respondent's hearing below, and the respondent helped to raise the respondent's wife's
older daughter from a prior relationship (I.J. at 2, 9; Tr. at 41, 48). Both the respondent and his
wife work (I.J. at 2; Tr. at 41-43). If the respondent is removed, his wife and children would
remain in the United States without him, resulting in family separation (1.J. at 3; Tr. at 46-47). The
respondent's wife has suffered from depression, including suicidal ideations, but she and the
respondent testified that she was doing pretty well at the time of the hearing. However, the wife

2
Cite as: Teresa Moreno-Gonzalez, A200 946 740 (BIA June 29, 2017)
A098 657 014

is concerned that the respondent's removal would exacerbate her depression. I.J. at 7; Tr. at 46,
101, 103-104; Exh. 2B at 28-37. The respondent also submitted several letters of support from
community leaders and employers that communicate their high regard for him as a person and a
professional (Exh. 2B at 43-49).

In balancing the foregoing positive and negative considerations, we disagree with the

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Immigration Judge that the respondent's adjustment application should be denied in the exercise
of discretion (I.J. at 9-13). The respondent's IO-year history of arrests, several of which involve
battery in varying degrees, gives us pause (I.J. at 3-4, 10-12; Exh. 2A at 60-61, 64, 67-70).
Critically, however, none of these arrests resulted in convictions. Further, the respondent has lived
in the United States for almost 2 decades and first entered the United States as a teenager. He has
a steady employment history and volunteers his time and service. Indeed, letters of support
indicate that the respondent is a valued member of the community. Moreover, the respondent has
been married to his United States citizen wife since 2001, they have raised three United States
citizen children together, and the respondent helped to raise his wife's older daughter from a
previous relationship. Further, the respondent's wife has struggled with depression and is
concerned that her illness may worsen if he is removed.

When considering the foregoing, and counterbalancing the negative considerations against the
positive equities in this case, we disagree with the Immigration Judge that the negative factors
outweigh the positives. In particular, we conclude that the lack of any criminal convictions, in
conjunction with the respondent's length of residency, his long marriage to a naturalized
United States citizen, his three United States citizen children and one stepchild, his wife's
depression, his steady employment history, and his letters of support, tip the balancing of the
equities in the respondent's favor. Thus, the respondent is deserving of adjustment of status in the
exercise of discretion.

Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

ORDER: The respondent's appeal is sustained.

FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(6), the record is remanded to the

Immigration Judge for the purpose of allowing the Department of Homeland Security the
opportunity to complete or update identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or
examinations, and further proceedings, if necessary, and for the entry of an order as provided by
8 C.F.R. 1003.47(h).

3
Cite as: Teresa Moreno-Gonzalez, A200 946 740 (BIA June 29, 2017)
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
EL PASO, TEXAS

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

File: A098-657-014 May 18, 2016

In the Matter of

)
RODOLFO CAJIGAS SIFUENTES ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
)
RESPONDENT )

CHARGE: Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act.

APPLICATIONS: Adjustment of status pursuant to Section 245 of the Act.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ILIANA HOLGUIN, Attorney

El Paso, Texas

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Adrian Paredes, Assistant Chief Counsel

Department of Homeland Security
El Paso, Texas

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a 31-year-old married male, native and citizen of Mexico. He
was served with a Notice to Appear on November 30, 2010. Exhibit 1. The Notice to
Appear initially charged him for being removable under both 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Act,
alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, as well as Section
212(a)(9)(C)(ii) of the Act, as an alien who has been unlawfully present in the U.S. with
an aggregate period of more than one year and entered or attempted to enter the

1
United States without being admitted. During the course of the hearing, the

Government chose to strike the 212(a)(9)(C)(i) charge to the remaining allegations and

212(a)(6) charge. The respondent, through counsel, admitted and conceded

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

removability. Accordingly, ! find that it is clear and convincing evidence to establish that

he is removable underneath the remaining 212(a)(6)(A)(i) charge. Mexico is designated

for the country of removal.

The respondent has applied for cancellation of removal pursuant to Section 245

of the Act. The issue before the Court today is his eligibility for this form of relief.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Notice to Appear has been marked and admitted as Exhibit 1. Additionally,

the following documents have been marked and received into evidence. Exhibit 2 was

respondent's primary application for adjustment of status and supporting documents.

Exhibit 2-A is other information supporting the request of relief to include criminal

history. Exhibit 2-8 were other additional documents in support of respondent's

requested relief, to include letters of support from friends and families and tax returns.

Exhibit 3 was the Government's memorandum of law, to include l-213's related to the

respondent.

Testimony was taken from the respondent, his wife, and oldest son. Their

testimony is briefly summarized as follows.

Respondent states that he is married to his United States citizen wife. They have

three children, all born in the United States, ages 18, 16 and 5. They are all attending

school and doing well. According to the respondent, his wife has two separate jobs. He

cannot recall the name specifically of where she works. She does have, apparently, a

varied work schedule. Respondent testifies that he has worked in the construction field

for over 16 years, makes approximately $450 per week presently, works from 7:00 to

A098-657-014 2 May 18, 2016

3:00 p.m., then picks up the children. Respondent, with his family, lives in a home that

they are purchasing. Turning to volunteer work, the respondent states that he works in

a program dealing with food services to those in need. Further, he states he does help

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

elderly neighbors on occasion.

Related to his children, respondent testifies that he does spend time with them

after school and after work to include going to the park, playing, and watching movies.

Respondent describes that he understands that his wife has some medical problems

apparently related to depression. He believes that she does take some medicine for

that condition and it has affected her in the past. He does, however, believe that her

health has been doing better more recently.

Respondent testifies that he does not wish his family to go to Mexico if he is

removed. Furthermore, he would not be able to support them as well as he does now

since income is not as great as it is found in the United States.

Respondent states that his first entry was around 1998. He states that at that

point in time he did have a visa to enter the United States legally. Apparently at at

some point that document was turned in, and he now has in part a work authorization

document.

Respondent further testifies that he married in 2001 to his current wife, and

because of that decided to stay in the United States without status. He does

acknowledge in 2006 going before a prior Immigration Judge and being granted

voluntary departure. He states that he did leave voluntarily, but apparently came back

just several months later illegally.

Respondent then reviewed briefly his criminal history. He addressed the five

criminal arrests that have been part of the record. His first arrest in 2003 he believes

was alcohol related, driving while intoxicated. He states he was not convicted. The

A098-657-014 3 May 18, 2016

case was dismissed. The next arrest was in 2005, where there apparently was an
argument between him and his wife where police were called in. He says he was mad
with his wife as she was with him, but apparently he was not convicted for that offense.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

The third arrest in 2008, again, an argument between him and his wife. He states,

again, he was not physical with his wife and was not convicted for that offense. The
fourth arrest in 2010, he states he was in an altercation with someone while he was
working at a location that resulted in a fight after respondent claims this individual
almost ran him over. Respondent states he was not convicted for this offense. Fifth

arrest, 2012, apparently the respondent was found guilty of theft, perhaps shoplifting,

wherein he went to a store. He says he did not intend to take anything without
permission. According to him, he was provided an opportunity to take a certain program

by the court. Ultimately, the case was dismissed.

Respondent testifies that he has never abused alcohol or drugs, has not made
any false claims to U.S. citizenship, has never used any false documents, has never
been involved with any illegal drugs or alien smuggling. Further, respondent states he
wants to stay in the United States because his children need him and he wants to be

with them and his wife. To the Court, the respondent acknowledges that he has many

arrests; that he asks for forgiveness because he is sorry for the things he has done.
On cross-examination, respondent was questioned further as to criminal history
to include the arrest related to issues with his wife. He states at some point he believes

he did obtain some class instruction on violence and anger management that he

believes has helped him. Furthermore, he believes that those incidents happened when
he was younger, around age 31, and now life has taught him more things, that his
children are all older, and he is doing the best he can.
Respondent further acknowledges, again, that he did leave in 2006 after being

A098-657-014 4 May 18, 2016

granted a voluntary departure by an Immigration Judge. He does acknowledge coming
back illegally. He states because his family needed him. He does acknowledge
recalling that judge telling him not to return without proper legal permission. Apparently

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

he did not heed that court's warning.

Respondent states that his volunteer work does include working at what appears

to be a soup kitchen as part of a church program. He testifies that he attends a

separate church for religious reasons.

The Court then queried the respondent. The respondent put on notice that it was
concerned about the five separate arrests respondent has had, whether or not they

resulted in convictions. Respondent was then given an opportunity to clarify these

various arrests. In sequence, the first offense with driving while intoxicated, respondent

does acknowledge that he had two or three beers, was stopped at a checkpoint and
was arrested. He does recall taking a breathalyzer that apparently showed him of

having alcohol higher than the level permitted by law. He was not sure why the case
was dismissed. The Court then referred him to documents indicating that it appears the
case was dismissed because of one of the police officers retiring, not available for trial,
and not having perhaps being ready for this specific trial at hand.

The next offense dealing with family violence, the respondent acknowledges now
that he was drinking alcohol, beer, that night. That has contrasted with earlier testimony
that he did not drink after his DWI incident. He maintains that he never touched his wife
illegally during that event. Apparently he instead left the household when his wife called

the police. He was told later to go down to meet the police about this incident, was in
fact then arrested, spent about a week in jail, and then turned over to Immigration
authorities. When questioned as to why this case was dismissed, again respondent
was not quite clear. Again, the Court referred to respondent's documents indicating that

A098-657-014 5 May 18, 2016

the respondent apparently was in the process of being deported at that time and it
appears that is why in large part the case was dismissed. Page 64, Exhibit 2-A.
Next, respondent again confirmed that after his second arrest he was granted

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

voluntary departure, but again returned illegally, and then subsequent to that had his
third arrest, again for domestic violence. Initially respondent states that he did not touch

his wife improperly, but further questioning indicates that perhaps he cannot recall well
the circumstances, but he feels about the incident. There could, in fact, have been
some pushing between him and his wife. The Court does note that that charge was not
just for domestic violence battery against a household member, but in fact aggravated

battery with great bodily harm. The Court then inquired further as to specifics as to why

that case was dismissed. It appears the documentation, page 67, does not go into
perhaps details as previous dismissals to give a better explanation about why that case
did not proceed to a full hearing.

Respondent's fourth arrest apparently happened at a McDonald's that he was

working at where some individual was driving too fast. Respondent told him to slow
down. Apparently there was an altercation between the respondent and this individual
that resulted in the respondent being hit and the respondent apparently hitting this
person back. Initially, the respondent was not quite clear about how this case was
disposed of in court. He is not sure how, in fact, the case was dismissed, but he
believes that perhaps there was no full disposition of this case since the other party,
according to respondent, did not want to press charges.
Turning to respondent's fifth arrest, respondent does recall now that it happened
in the Sears store in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when he states he was buying shirts.
Apparently his back was hurting, he took some pain pills, and in part because of a long
line waiting to pay for the items taken or wanting to be purchased, that he left the store

A098-657-014 6 May 18, 2016

 '

without paying and was subsequently arrested. He states he did go to jail, did see a
judge, and apparently was provided an opportunity to do community service, which
ultimately resulted in having the case dismissed.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Upon further questioning, the respondent maintains he has never used false
documents in the United States. However, he has been working in the United States
since approximately 1998 without documents, being paid cash for work all of those
years until approximately 2013, when he was granted work authorization.
Testimony was then taken from respondent's wife. She testifies that she is age
40, a naturalized citizen, married to the respondent. She states they were married in

2001, have three children from their relationship, but she has an older daughter from a

previous relationship that the respondent has also helped raise. The witness testifies
that she does work two separate jobs, one in a hotel and one as a caregiver. Further,
respondent does help her with her children while the witness is working at these jobs.
She states the respondent does have a very good relationship with his children.

The witness then went on to describe her health conditions. She indicates that
she has had depression in the past, particularly after the birth of her last child. She
states that she has taken medication in the past for anxiety and has seen medical
treatment in the past. The witness does state that she does feel better now, and has

improved over time with her condition. Further, she states that she does rely on the
respondent greatly when she is depressed. She believes if respondent is deported that
her condition could get worse and it would affect, of course, her and her children's
ability to remain in the United States in the manner and means that they have
accustomed themselves to. Further, the children do have future plans in the United
States that she wants the family to be able to enjoy together.
She further states that there is some degree of participation in church

A098-657-014 7 May 18, 2016

organizations with the family. Further, that the respondent is a good person, intelligent,
and helps others. She briefly described her limited recollection of the domestic violence
incidents between her and her husband. She states that she does not fear her husband

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

for harm to her or to her children. Further, she has been seeking her husband to obtain
lawful status for approximately 15 years and, again, needs him in the U.S. with them.
On cross-examination, again dealing with the domestic violence arrests, it

appears that the witness again cannot recall well specifics, based in part to her

depression. This was confirmed by the Court when she did not recall the respondent
drinking during the first incident as he recalls happening, and in the second incident

where he recalls pushing involvement between the two of them, and the witness cannot

recall that part of the incident.

Testimony was then taken from respondent's oldest son. He states that he does
not want his father to be deported, that the family needs him here in the United States,
and that he is concerned about his mother's perhaps further regression with depression

because that is still an issue to some degree. According to the witness, he has not
seen his parents argue or seen them hitting each other. However, he is not really
familiar with any of the respondent's arrests. He further believes that his father
deserves to stay in the United States and that he has been a great role model.
STATEMENT OF THE LAW

The status of an alien who has been inspected, admitted, or paroled in the United
States may be adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residency if
he applied for adjustment, is eligible to receive an immigrant visa, and is admissible to
the United States for permanent residency and an immigrant visa is immediately
available to him at the time his application is filed. Section 245 of the Act. If eligibility is
established, adjustment of status may be granted in the exercise of discretion. Matter of

A098-657-014 8 May 18, 2016

Arai, 13 l&N Dec. 494 (BIA 1970). The alien bears the burden of establishing elig ibility
for adjustment of status and demonstrating that relief is merited in the exercise of

discretion. See Matter of Ibrahim, 18 l&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981); Matter of Cavazos, 17

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

l&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980); Matter of Blas, 15 l&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1974).
The Court's discretionary decision depends on the facts of the particular case,
and as such is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility.

Discretion must be exercised even though the statutory prerequisites have been met.
Matter of Ortiz-Prieto, 11 l&N Dec. 317 (BIA 1965); see also Matter of Blas. A favorable
exercise of adm inistrative discretion is warranted where positive factors such as family

ties, length of residency and hardship, outweigh adverse factors. Matter of Arai.

However, where adverse factors are present, it may be necessary for the applicant to
present unusual or outstanding countervailing equities to merit a grant of an application
for adjustment of status.
The Court also notes that the Fifth Circuit Court of of Appeals in Mamoka v. INS,

43 F. 3d 184 (1995), has found that an application for adjustment of status is proper if it

is adequately addressed and gave appropriate weight to equities, but found that those
were insufficient to outweigh alien's blatant disregard for I mmigration laws.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
The Court will first note that the respondent does, in fact, have some positive

equities in the United States. Those include a long-term marriage to a naturalized

citizen, with three children from that relationship and a step-daughter. It does appear to
this Court that clearly the fam ily is very close and has been for a number of years. The
Court finds that the three younger children apparently are doing well both in school and
no indication of any health problems.
Turning to respondent's wife, the Court does note that there is some

A098-657-014 9 May 18, 2016

documentation and some testimony that this individual has had challenges in the past

with medical problems and perhaps some deg ree at the present time and perhaps some

to the future . However, the Court notes, again , it is the burden of the respondent to be

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

able to present full evidence for the Court's review and consideration. While, again ,

there i s some documentation a s to this individ ual's issues i n the past, the Court i s not

quite clear the extent of that cu rrent condition and the cond ition in the future. While

there has been, again, depression in the past that has caused some concerns . the

Court does not find that to be overwhelming evidence before this Court to find that to be

a sign ificant serious med ical condition.

Further, it appears that finally, recently, the respondent d id obtain work

authorization and has been using that for the last several years. Further, apparently

has been filing taxes for the last several years. Finally, he has done some apparent

recent vol unteer services within the com munity.

The Court wi ll also note that there are numerous letters from ind ividu als that

state that they know the ind ivid ual and think highly of him. However, the Court will note

that these individuals were not subject to cross-exam ination , that those letters do not

indicate any knowledge, if any, as to respondent's m u ltiple cri m inal arrests. Therefore,

those letters are g iven m inimal weight.

Next, turning to respondent's negative factors. The Court notes again, clearly,

the respondent has five separate criminal arrests. While the Court clearly

acknowledges that it appears it was just the last conviction when in fact the respondent

was perhaps in effect found g u i lty but g iven pretrial d iversion, nonetheless it is the facts
and circumstances of each arrest that, notwithstanding any convictions, do g reatly

concern this Court. To that end , the Court again notes the following . First, the

respondent states that these convictions were done when he was younger. However, it

A098-657-0 1 4 10 May 1 8, 201 6

appears that the first incidents with criminal histories were when the respondent was in

his either late 20's or early 30's . The Court does not find this to be a reasonable

response as to the respondent being immature.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Turning to the first arrest for a DWI , again , it appears based on the testimony that

the respondent was in fact drinking and driving since he had an alcoholic level higher

than perm itted . It appears based on the evidence of record that the full case d id not

proceed to trial because of a lack of available witnesses. Therefore, the Court does find

this to be a significant event.

Next, we have the first family violence issue when the respondent apparently was

still drinking to some degree and there were some type of issues between the

respondent and his wife. The Court finds that both individ uals' memories appear not to

be very clear about the specifics , and there is no pol ice report to ascertain more specific

facts during the incident and su bsequent arrest. Whether or not there was actually

unlawful touchi ng , there was i n fact an arrest made and , again, the Court finds the

reason for this dism issal, to wit: that the respondent was deported from the U n ited

States, did not show that the respondent in fact was not g u i lty of some crim inal

violations. As noted , after this second arrest respondent was in fact turned over to

Immig ration authorities , was detained, saw an Immig ration J udge who, based on the

facts and circumstances of respondent's case at that time, chose fit to provide the

respondent the opportun ity to leave the Un ited States volu ntari ly, wh ich the respondent

accepted .

However, it is q uite clear to this Court that the respondent had no real i ntent to

not come back to the U nited States since he freely admits that he came back after

leaving voluntarily by a court order several months later illeg ally to reunite with h is

family. The Court finds this to be a sig nificant adverse effect since it clearly

A098-657-01 4 11 May 1 8, 20 1 6
demonstrates the respondent's flagrant violation of Immigration laws that provided the
respondent basically to come back to the United States and continue his life in the
United States now in an unlawful status.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

After this significant Immigration violation, we have the third arrest, again for
domestic violence. Again, the Court would have preferred a police report to give more
details since details by both the respondent and his wife are sketchy at best, but at
some point respondent does admit to perhaps unlawfully pushing his wife during this
time. The Court finds, again, that the reasons for this dismissal are not quite clear as to
the significance and actual true violations by respondent.

Turning to the fourth arrest, the Court notes that the respondent may have in fact
been put in a situation where he was just basically defending himself. Again, the facts
are not quite clear and, apparently, there was no conviction. The Court does not find
this to be, of the five arrests, the most significant one.

Turning to the final arrest, the respondent seems to minimize what happened, but
it is clear to this Court that he did, for whatever reason, leave a store without paying for
items taken. Respondent was in fact fortunate that he was provided an opportunity to
have pretrial diversion so that ultimately there was no conviction rendered.

The Court looks at the totality of the circumstances and events surrounding
respondent's life in the United States when determining how serious these adverse
factors are. Once again we are dealing with not one, not two, not three, but five
separate arrests by the respondent with dismissals for various reasons that do not

satisfy this Court, again, that the respondent was not in violation of criminal laws for at
least several of these offenses. Again, clearly the respondent committed these offenses
both during and after an opportunity to leave voluntarily, which he chose to then violate
the laws by coming back illegally.

A098-657-014 12 May 1 8, 20 1 6
 The Court believes that it has fully analyzed both the positive and negative
factors in respondent's case. Again, as the case law dictates, individuals with
questionable behavior in the United States may in fact need to demonstrate unusual or

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

outstanding countervailing equities to merit a grant of an application for adjustment of
status. Further, again as noted, it is a matter of discretion for the Court to decide what

is in the best interest of not only the respondent, but society at large as to a grant of

adjustment of status. Simply put, the Court cannot and will not find that the respondent
is in fact deserving of adjustment of status based on his conduct in the United States
over many years. Therefore, and in the Court's discretion, the Court will deny

respondent's request for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident.

ORDERS OF THE COURT
Accordingly, the following orders are hereby entered:

The respondent's application for cancellation of removal under Section 245 of the
Act is hereby denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the United

States to Mexico on the remaining charge on the Notice to Appear.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature
ROBERT S. HOUGH
Immigration Judge

A098-657-014 13 May 18, 2016

/Isl/
Immigrat ion Judge ROBERT S . HOUGH
houghr on August 2 2 , 2 0 1 6 at 9 : 5 5 PM GMT

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

A098-657-01 4 14 May 1 8, 201 6