Yepes-Prado v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
10 F.3d 1363 (1993)
- Written by Susie Cowen, JD
Facts
Rigoberto Yepes-Prado (plaintiff) was lawfully admitted to the United States in 1974. Since admission, Yepes-Prado maintained steady employment. In 1984, he was arrested for possession of heroin and intent to distribute. Based on his subsequent conviction for the drug charge, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (defendant) ordered Yepes-Prado to show cause as to why he should not be deported under a statute authorizing such deportation for aliens who have been convicted of violating laws regarding controlled substances. After conceding that he was eligible for deportation, Yepes-Prado sought a discretionary waiver under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Act). Such a waiver is granted only after a thorough analysis of the relevant factors that weigh in favor and against such a decision. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Yepes-Prado’s request despite finding that several equities weighed in his favor. Yepes-Prado appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA found that Yepes-Prado had outstanding equities and was eligible for relief, but found no error in the IJ’s decision. Yepes-Prado petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reinhardt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.