Unpublished Disposition, 895 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
FRANCISCO JAVIER CALDERON-TRANA, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 1990* .Decided Feb. 9, 1990.
Before CANBY, BRUNETTI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Calderon-Trana petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his request for a waiver of deportation under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion, and therefore deny the petition.
Petitioner's contentions before the BIA that his state court conviction was legally infirm were addressed to the wrong forum. "As an administrative agency, the INS has no power to adjudicate the validity of state convictions underlying deportation proceedings." Ocon-Perez v. INS, 550 F.2d 1153, 1154 (9th Cir. 1977). Petitioner's conviction therefore constitutes an adequate basis for the order of deportation. Id.
The BIA's decision denying waiver of deportation based on the seriousness of petitioner's criminal history is supported by a reasoned explanation based on the legitimate concerns present in the record. See Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 1987). The BIA's decision stated its reasons for the denial of Sec. 212(c) relief, showing proper consideration of all favorable and unfavorable factors when weighing equities. See Mattis v. INS, 774 F.2d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Matter of Marin, 16 I & N Dec. 581, 584-5 (BIA 1978).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the decision of the BIA is AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Therefore, Calderon-Trana's request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3