Camilo Aispuro-llanes, Petitioner, v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 968 F.2d 1220 (9th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 968 F.2d 1220 (9th Cir. 1992) Submitted May 22, 1992. *Decided July 15, 1992

Before CHOY, SNEED and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Camilo Aispuro-Llanes seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of his application for discretionary relief from deportation under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). We affirm.

Aispuro-Llanes's only objection is to the immigration judge's requirement that he demonstrate "outstanding equities" for 212(c) relief, because Aispuro-Llanes had been previously convicted of a drug-related crime. On September 19, 1991, two months after Aispuro-Llanes filed his petition for review in this court, we handed down Ayala-Chavez v. INS, 944 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1991). Ayala-Chavez raised identical issues to those presented here. We found that the "BIA's application of a higher standard for drug offenders is rationally based upon the [Immigration and Nationality] Act's manifest concern with drug activity by lawful permanent residents." Id. at 641. "The higher standard," we held, "represents a permissible interpretation of the Act." Id. Aispuro-Llanes's petition is squarely controlled by Ayala-Chavez. See also Charlesworth v. INS, No. 91-70298 slip op. 6519, 6523 (9th Cir. June 12, 1992) (recognizing the BIA's authority to apply the "outstanding equities" standard under section 212(c) on de novo review from a discretionary decision of an immigration judge).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)

 **

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.