Matter of Buscemi

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Reverend Robert Vitaglione William F. Jankun Accredited Representative General Attorney 856 Pacific Street Brooklyn, New York 11238 Charles Sanders Acting Appellate Counsel

代表答辩人： 代表移民局： Reverend Robert Vitaglione William F. Jankun 认可代表 总检察长 856 Pacific Street Brooklyn, New York 11238 Charles Sanders 代理上诉律师

In a decision dated August 20, 1987, the immigration judge found the respondent deportable on the charge set forth above and denied his application for relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1982). The respondent has appealed. The appeal will be dismissed. The respondent is a single, 26-year-old native of Italy and lawful permanent resident of the United States. On. March 14, 1983, he was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance, heroin. At the deportation hearing, the respondent admitted the al- legations in the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form 1-221) and conceded deportability under section 241(a)(11) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (Supp. IV 1986), for having been convict- ed, at any time after entry, of a violation of, or a conspiracy to vio- late, any law or regulation of a state, the United States, or a for- eign country relating to a controlled substance. We find that de- portability has been established by clear, unequivocal, and convinc- ing evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 242.14(a) (1988); Woodby v. INS, 3R5 U.S. 276 (1966). The only issue on appeal is whether the immigra- tion judge properly denied the respondent's application for a waiver under section 212(c) of the Act. The record reflects that the respondent has resided in the United States since 1970, when he was admitted for lawful permanent resi- dence. It further indicates that the respondent's immediate family, consisting of his parents and four siblings, all reside in this country either as United States citizens or lawful permanent residents. The respondent's mother, who testified in his behalf, stated that her son has helped to support the family and has acted as a father to his siblings since her husband abandoned them in 1975. The respondent testified that he was forced to attend primary school on a part-time basis en that he could work to earn money for his family. He further advised that he dropped out of high school to attend a vocational school in automotive mechanics and then, in 1976, began work as a mechanic. He indicated that he would give his mother a large portion of his paycheck each week. The record also reveals that the respondent's mother and sister are currently employed on a full-time basis and that the family is self-sufficient despite the inability of the respondent to contribute toward its sup- port due to his incarceration. The respondent advised that he would feel very uncomfortable if deported to Italy and that he wishes to remain with his family in this country. He stated that he was last in Italy in 1980, when he visited for a 4-month period, and that he did not like it. He testi- fied that, although he was able to find work in Italy as a mechanic,

在1987年8月20日的一项决定中，移民法官认定被申请人因上述指控而可被驱逐，并驳回了其根据《移民与国籍法》第212(c)条，8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1982)，提出的救济申请。被申请人已提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。 被申请人为单身，26岁，意大利本地人，美国合法永久居民。1983年3月14日，他在纽约州最高法院因企图非法出售受管制物质海洛因而被定罪。在驱逐听证中，被申请人承认了《出庭通知及听证通知》（Form 1-221）中的指控，并承认根据该法第241(a)(11)条，8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (Supp. IV 1986)，因在入境后任何时间被判违反或共谋违反州、美国或外国有关受管制物质的任何法律或法规而可被驱逐。我们认定，驱逐已由明确、不含糊且令人信服的证据证明。见8 C.F.R. § 242.14(a) (1988)；Woodby v. INS, 3R5 U.S. 276 (1966)。上诉中唯一的问题是移民法官是否正确驳回了被申请人根据该法第212(c)条提出的豁免申请。 记录显示，被申请人自1970年作为合法永久居民获准入境以来一直居住在美国。记录还表明，被申请人的直系亲属，包括其父母和4名兄弟姐妹，均作为美国公民或合法永久居民居住在本国。被申请人的母亲代表其作证称，自其丈夫于1975年抛弃他们以来，她的儿子一直帮助养家，并充当其兄弟姐妹的父亲角色。 被申请人作证称，他被迫以非全日制方式就读小学，以便能够工作为家庭挣钱。他还表示，他从高中辍学，就读于汽车机械职业学校，随后于1976年开始担任机械师。他表示，他每周会将工资的很大一部分交给母亲。记录还显示，被申请人的母亲和姐妹目前从事全日制工作，尽管被申请人因被监禁而无法为其抚养提供帮助，但家庭仍能自给自足。 被申请人表示，如果被驱逐至意大利，他会感到非常不适，并希望与家人留在本国。他称，他最后一次在意大利是1980年，当时访问了4个月，他并不喜欢那里。他作证称，尽管他能够在意大利找到机械师的工作，

he was unable to earn sufficient money to support his family, who had accompanied him, and, therefore, they all returned to the United States. 1 He stated that, while he probably would be able to find employment in Italy if deported, the job would not pay well. Moreover, he advised that, although he has uncles and aunts in Italy, they would be hostile toward him because of his criminal record. The testimony of the respondent, his mother, and his sister, who also testified in his behalf, revealed that they have a close re- lationship. According to this testimony, they converse on the tele- phone frequently, and the respondent's mother and sister visit him in prison every month. The respondent also indicated that his father has visited him once in prison. With respect to his criminal history, the respondent testified that he began using drugs in 1980, and that he acquired a 60- to 70- dollar-a-day habit. He informed the immigration judge that, despite his 1983 attempted drug sale conviction, he never sold drugs and he accepted a sale conviction only because he was naive. The re- spondent testified that he was sentenced to 5 years' probation for his offense. He also stated that, subsequent to this conviction, he entered a drug rehabilitation program for 6 months and did not take drugs during this period. The respondent's testimony in this regard is supported by a copy of a letter, dated May 31, 1985, from the residential coordinator of a live-in drug rehabilitation facility, who indicates that the respondent stayed at the facility from Feb- ruary 23, 1984, until August 1, 1984, and that he successfully main- tained a drug-free state during this time. The respondent further testified, however, that he began taking drugs again 4 months after he left the program and that he participated in a robbery in order to support his habit. The record reflects, in fact, that the respond- ent committed this crime on October 12, 1984, approximately 2 1 2 months after completing the drug rehabilitation program. Accord- ing to the respondent, he and four other men, who had two guns between them, entered a house for the purpose of stealing valua- bles and, in the process, tied up a maid but did not harm her. The record shows that, as a result of this incident, the respondent was convicted of attempted robbery on May 3, 1985, and was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 3 and 1/2 to 7 years. Moreover, the respondent advised that, after his robbery arrest, the probation with respect to his 1983 conviction was revoked, and he was sen-

他无法赚到足够的钱来养活随他同行的家人，因此他们全都返回了美国。1 他表示，如果被驱逐出境，他或许能在意大利找到工作，但那份工作薪水不高。此外，他表示，尽管他在意大利有叔叔和姑姑，但由于他的犯罪记录，他们会对他怀有敌意。申请人、他的母亲以及同样为他作证的姐姐的证词显示，他们关系密切。根据该证词，他们经常通电话，申请人的母亲和姐姐每月到监狱探望他。申请人还表示，他的父亲曾到监狱探望过他一次。 关于他的犯罪史，申请人作证称他于1980年开始吸毒，并形成了每天60至70美元的毒瘾。他告知移民法官，尽管他1983年有企图贩毒定罪，但他从未贩卖过毒品，他接受贩毒定罪只是因为他当时天真。申请人作证称，他因该罪行被判处5年缓刑。他还表示，在该定罪之后，他参加了一个为期6个月的戒毒康复项目，在此期间没有吸毒。申请人在这方面的证词得到了一封日期为1985年5月31日的信件副本的支持，该信由一家住宿式戒毒康复机构的住宿协调员出具，其中表明申请人自1984年2月23日至1984年8月1日期间待在该机构，并且在此期间成功保持了无毒品状态。然而，申请人进一步作证称，他在离开该项目4个月后又开始吸毒，并参与了一起抢劫以维持他的毒瘾。记录实际上反映，申请人于1984年10月12日实施了该犯罪，大约在他完成戒毒康复项目2 1 2个月之后。据申请人称，他和另外4名男子（他们之间有两把枪）进入一所房子意图窃取贵重物品，在此过程中捆绑了一名女佣，但没有伤害她。记录显示，由于该事件，申请人于1985年5月3日被判定犯有企图抢劫罪，并被判处3 and 1/2至7年的不定期监禁刑期。此外，申请人表示，在他因抢劫被捕后，针对其1983年定罪的缓刑被撤销，他被判

tented to 6 months in prison. The respondent's inmate record card, a copy of which is contained in the record, indicates that while in- carcerated the respondent committed several infractions, such as damaging state property, possessing contraband, disobedience, and being out of place, for which he received sanctions of varying sever- ity, from reprimands to loss of privileges. The respondent testified that these violations and punishments were not serious. The respondent advised that his past transgressions were the result of his drug abuse and his association with individuals who had a bad influence on him. He stated that he began taking drugs to deal with the pressure that he felt from having to assume adult responsibilities after his father left. According to the respondent, he will not be involved, in any future wrongdoing because he real- izes that it is the incorrect path to pursue and that he eventually would find himself in prison again. He testified that the last time he took drugs was in November 1984 and that he believes that he is rehabilitated. He related that, while in prison, he has participat- ed in drug rehabilitation, violence awareness, vocational, and edu- cational programs. The respondent also indicated that he has been employed in prison, first as a mechanic and then as a barber. He further stated that his former employer has offered to rehire him as a mechanic when he is released. Finally, the respondent submitted copies of letters and affidavits from his former neighbors and employer testifying to his good character. He also provided a copy of a letter, apparently from the pastor of his church, which states that the respondent's rehabilita- tion would not be aided if he is returned to Italy and that the re- spondent should be permitted to remain in this country with his family. The immigration judge denied the respondent's application for a section 212(c) waiver in her discretion, concluding that the respond- ent had not demonstrated the outstanding equities and genuine re- habilitation necessary to merit relief in the face of a serious crimi- nal record. The immigration judge noted that the respondent's ex- pressed feeling of discomfort in returning to Italy if deported, com- bined with the emotional hardship to his family members, did not rise to the level of outstanding equities. In fmding that the re- spondent had failed to demonstrate rehabilitation, the immigration judge observed that, although the respondent had participated in various programs while incarcerated, he also had committed sever- al infractions. The respondent's contentions on appeal were presented through his Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Form 290A), his appeal brief, and oral argument. He argues that the im-

被判处6个月监禁。记录中载有答辩人的囚犯记录卡副本，该记录卡显示，答辩人在服刑期间实施了若干违规行为，例如损坏州财产、持有违禁品、不服从以及不在指定位置，并因此受到从训诫到剥夺特权等轻重不一的制裁。答辩人作证称，这些违规行为和处罚并不严重。 答辩人表示，他过去的违法行为是其滥用毒品以及与对他产生不良影响的人交往所致。他说，他开始吸毒是为了应对父亲离开后他不得不承担成人责任所感受到的压力。据答辩人称，他今后不会再参与任何不法行为，因为他认识到那是错误的道路，而且他最终会再次入狱。他作证称，他最后一次吸毒是在1984年11月，并且他相信自己已经康复。他陈述说，在狱中，他参加了戒毒、暴力意识、职业和教育项目。答辩人还表示，他在狱中一直受雇工作，先是做机械工，后来做理发师。他还说，他以前的雇主已提出在他获释后重新雇用他做机械工。 最后，答辩人提交了其前邻居和雇主证明其良好品格的来信和宣誓书副本。他还提供了一封信的副本，该信显然来自其教堂的牧师，信中称，如果答辩人被遣返回意大利，其康复将得不到帮助，并且应当允许答辩人与家人留在美国。 移民法官行使自由裁量权，驳回了答辩人根据第212(c)条提出的豁免申请，认定答辩人未能证明在严重犯罪记录面前具有值得给予救济的杰出衡平因素和真正康复。移民法官指出，答辩人所表达的如果被驱逐回意大利会感到不适的感受，加上对其家庭成员的情感困难，未达到杰出衡平因素的水平。在认定答辩人未能证明康复时，移民法官指出，尽管答辩人在服刑期间参加了各种项目，但他也实施了若干违规行为。 答辩人在上诉中的主张通过其向移民上诉委员会提交的上诉通知（Form 290A）、其上诉摘要以及口头辩论提出。他主张，移民

migration judge abused her discretion in refusing to grant section 212(e) relief. He maintains that he will be forced into a state of ho- melessness and destitution if required to return to Italy, conditions which he asserts amount to unusual and outstanding hardship. He points out that, as he was unsuccessful in his attempt to reestab- lish himself in Italy in 1980 when he had the presence of his family for support, he is unlikely to succeed by himself if deported. Fur- thermore, the respondent alleges that his family will suffer emo- tional and economic privation if he is deported. In addition, the respondent contends that the immigration judge erroneously found that rehabilitation had not been established. In support of this contention, the respondent alleges that he was not involved in any wrongdoing for a 2-year period (apparently the time between his 1983 and 1985 convictions). lie also states that he made great efforts to rehabilitate himself by participating in vari- ous prison programs. Finally, he emphasizes that he has worked while incarcerated and that his prison record contains only rela- tively minor infractions. With respect to his ability to reintegrate himself into society, the respondent stresses his post-release offer of employment, his violence awareness counseling, and the fact that he will be under intense parole supervision for a number of years. As a final argument, the respondent suggests that, because the de- portation hearing was conducted in a state prison environment, the immigration judge may have been more conservative in exercising her discretion than she would have been in a more neutral setting. The Immigration. and Naturalization Service presented its con- tentions on appeal at oral argument. It argues that the decision of the immigration judge is correct and that the respondent has not demonstrated the unusual or outstanding equities necessary to overcome his two serious convictions and history of drug addiction. Furthermore, the Service asserts that, far from showing rehabilita- tion, the respondent appears to be a likely recidivist. Section 212(c) of the Act provides that aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceed abroad voluntar- ily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of 7 consecutive years, may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard to certain specified grounds of exclusion. In light of our decision in Matter of Silva, 16 I&N Dec. 26 (BIA 1976), a lawful permanent resident is prima facie eligible for relief from deportation under section 212(c), even though he has not proceeded abroad subsequent to the acts which rendered him deportable. See Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1976).

法官在拒绝给予第212(e)条救济时滥用其自由裁量权。他坚持认为，如果被要求返回意大利，他将被迫陷入无家可归和贫困的状态，他声称这些条件构成不寻常和杰出的困难。他指出，由于他1980年在有家人支持的情况下试图在意大利重新立足未获成功，如果被驱逐，他独自一人不太可能成功。此外，答辩人声称，如果他 被驱逐，其家人将遭受情感和经济困苦。 此外，答辩人主张，移民法官错误地认定未证明康复。为支持这一主张，答辩人声称，他在2年期间（显然是其1983年和1985年定罪之间的时间）未参与任何不法行为。他还表示，他通过参加各种监狱项目为自身康复作出了巨大努力。最后，他强调，他在服刑期间一直工作，而且其监狱记录仅包含相对轻微的违规行为。关于其重新融入社会的能力，答辩人强调其获释后的就业机会、其暴力意识咨询，以及他将在若干年内受到严密假释监督这一事实。作为最后一项论点，答辩人提出，由于驱逐听证是在州监狱环境中进行的，移民法官在行使自由裁量权时可能比在更中立的环境中更为保守。 移民和归化局在口头辩论中提出了其上诉主张。它主张，移民法官的决定是正确的，并且答辩人未能证明克服其两项严重定罪和吸毒史所必需的不寻常或杰出衡平因素。此外，该局声称，答辩人远未表现出康复，反而似乎很可能再次犯罪。 该法第212(c)条规定，合法获准永久居留的外国人，如果自愿临时出国而非根据驱逐令出国，并且返回其连续7年合法未放弃的住所，可以经司法部长自由裁量获准入境，而不考虑某些指定的禁止入境理由。鉴于我们在Matter of Silva, 16 I&N Dec. 26 (BIA 1976)中的裁决，合法永久居民表面上即有资格根据第212(c)条获得驱逐救济，即使其在导致其可被驱逐的行为之后并未出国。见Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1976)。

Section 212(c) of the Act, however, does not provide an indis- criminate waiver for all who demonstrate statutory eligibility for such relief_ Instead, the Attorney General or his delegate is re- quired to determine as a matter of discretion whether an applicant merits the relief sought, and the alien bears the burden of demon- strating that his application merits favorable consideration. Matter of Martin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (MA 1978). The exercise of discretion in a particular case necessarily re- quires consideration of all the facts and circumstances involved. There must be a balancing of the social and humane considerations presented in an alien's favor against the adverse factors evidencing his undesirability as a permanent resident. The Board has enunci- ated numerous factors to be considered in determining whether or not to grant section 212(c) relief. See Matter of Maria, supra. Favor- able considerations have been found to 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 a young age), evidence of hardship to the respondent and his family if deportation 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 genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and other evidence attest- ing to a respondent's good character. Id. Amdng the factors deemed adverse to an alien are the nature and underlying circumstances of the exclusion ground at issue, 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. Id. Moreover, as we noted in Marin, one or more of these adverse considerations may ultimately be determinative of whether section 212(c) relief is in fact granted in an individual case. Id. We have also pointed out that, as the negative factors grow more serious, it becomes incumbent upon the alien to introduce addition- al offsetting favorable evidence, which in some cases may have to involve unusual or outstanding equities. Id. Such a heightened showing is required when an alien has been convicted of a serious drug offense, particularly one relating to the trafficking or sale of drugs. Id. The necessity of demonstrating unusual or outstanding equities is not exclusively triggered by serious crimes involving controlled substances, however_ Rafher, as we indicated in Marin, one must examine the gravity of the offense, per se. Id. In addition, such a showing may be mandated because of a single serious crime, as in Marin, or because of a succession of criminal acts, which to-

然而，该法第212(c)条并未为所有证明符合此类救济法定资格的人提供不加区分的豁免。相反，司法部长或其代表必须作为自由裁量事项决定申请人是否值得获得所寻求的救济，并且外国人负有证明其申请值得有利考虑的举证责任。Matter of Martin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978)。 在特定案件中行使自由裁量权必然要求考虑所涉及的所有事实和情况。必须将有利于外国人的社会和人文考虑与表明其作为永久居民不受欢迎的不利因素进行权衡。委员会已阐明了在决定是否给予第212(c)条救济时应考虑的众多因素。见Matter of Marin, supra。有利考虑已被认定包括诸如在美国的家庭纽带、在美国长期居住（特别是居住始于年轻时）、如果驱逐对答辩人及其家庭造成困难的证据、在美国武装部队服役、就业史、财产或商业联系的存在、对社区的价值和服务的证据、如果存在犯罪记录则证明真正康复，以及其他证明答辩人良好品格的证据。Id. 被视为对外国人不利的因素包括所涉禁止入境理由的性质和基本情形、存在其他重大违反美国移民法的行为、存在犯罪记录以及如果存在的话其性质、近期性和严重性，以及存在表明答辩人品格不良或作为美国永久居民不受欢迎的其他证据。Id. 此外，正如我们在Marin中指出的，这些不利考虑中的一个或多个最终可能决定在个别案件中是否实际给予第212(c)条救济。Id. 我们还指出，随着负面因素变得更加严重，外国人就有义务提出额外的抵消性有利证据，在某些案件中这可能必须涉及不寻常或杰出的衡平因素。Id. 当外国人被判犯有严重毒品犯罪，特别是与贩运或销售毒品有关的犯罪时，就需要这种更高程度的证明。Id. 然而，证明不寻常或杰出衡平因素的必要性并非完全由涉及受管制物质的严重犯罪触发。相反，正如我们在Marin中所指出的，必须审查罪行本身的严重性。Id. 此外，这种证明可能因单一严重犯罪（如Marin中）或因一系列犯罪行为而成为必需，这些犯罪行为

gether establish a pattern of serious criminal misconduct. Finally, we observe that an alien who demonstrates unusual or outstanding equities, as required, merely satisfies the threshold test for having a favorable exercise of discretion considered in his case; such a showing does not compel that discretion be exercised in his favor. In regard to the adverse factors in this case, we note that the re- spondent, an admitted drug user, has been convicted of two serious offenses, one involving the attempted sale of heroin, and the other entailing attempted robbery, in which firearms were carried and an innocent bystander physically restrained. We further observe that the second crime was committed while the respondent was still under probation for his first offense. Given the serious nature of these crimes and their relative recency, it is necessary for the respondent to demonstrate unusual or outstanding equities in order for a favorable exercise of discretion to be considered. After careful review, we conclude that, although the respondent's case warrants our consideration as to whether favorable discretion should be exercised, we find that, after the equities are balanced, a discretionary grant of section 212(c) relief is not merited. In his favor, the respondent has shown that he has resided in this coun- try for some 17 years 2 and that such residence began at a young age. Moreover, the record reflects that the respondent's entire im- mediate family resides in this country either as United States citi- zens or lawful permanent residents. Furthermore, the respondent has demonstrated that he is closely tied to his family and that all would suffer emotional hardship if the respondent were deported. Finally, we note that the respondent appears to have a history of gainful employment and that he was forced to grow up under diffi- cult circumstances. We consider these to be outstanding equities, particularly with respect to the respondent's 17 years of residence in this country since age 9. Contrary to the respondent's assertions, however, we are not per- suaded that he will become homeless and destitute if deported to Italy. The record indicates that he found employment in Italy as a mechanic in 1980, and he testified that he probably would be able to find work there again, though it would not pay well. In addition, the respondent offers no evidence to support his conjecture that he will be rejected by his Italian relatives because of his criminal

共同构成严重刑事不当行为的模式。最后，我们注意到，一名外国人若按要求展示了不寻常或杰出的衡平因素，也仅满足其案件中考虑有利行使裁量权的门槛标准；此种证明并不强制裁量权必须对其有利行使。关于本案中的不利因素，我们注意到，被申请人是一名已承认的吸毒者，已被判定犯有两项严重罪行，一项涉及企图出售海洛因，另一项涉及企图抢劫，其中携带了枪支并实际约束了一名无辜旁观者。我们进一步注意到，第二项犯罪是在被申请人仍因第一项罪行处于缓刑期间实施的。鉴于这些犯罪的严重性质及其相对近期性，被申请人有必要展示不寻常或杰出的衡平因素，以便考虑有利行使裁量权。经仔细审查，我们得出结论：尽管被申请人的案件值得我们就是否应行使有利裁量权予以考虑，但我们认定，在衡平因素平衡之后，裁量性授予第212(c)条救济并不值得。对被申请人有利的是，其已证明他在本国居住约17年2，且该居住始于年幼之时。此外，记录反映被申请人的全部直系亲属均作为美国公民或合法永久居民居住在本国。再者，被申请人已证明其与家庭联系紧密，若被申请人被驱逐，所有家庭成员都将遭受情感困难。最后，我们注意到被申请人似乎有从事有酬工作的经历，且他被迫在困难环境中成长。我们认为这些是杰出的衡平因素，特别是关于被申请人自9岁起在本国居住17年这一点。 然而，与被申请人的主张相反，我们并不确信他若被驱逐至意大利将变得无家可归和贫困潦倒。记录表明他于1980年在意大利找到了一份机械师的工作，且他作证称他可能能够再次在那里找到工作，尽管报酬不会高。此外，被申请人未提供任何证据支持其猜测，即他将因其犯罪记录而被意大利亲属拒绝

record, or that, even if this were to be the case, he would be unable to house himself without their assistance. Although the respondent maintains that previous family attempts to resettle in Italy ended in failure and that, therefore, he will be unable to succeed there by himself, we note that the specific reasons offered for the most recent failure were that he could not earn enough money to sup- port his family and that he did not like Italy. We observe that, if the respondent is deported, he will only have to support himself. Moreover, we are not convinced that the respondent will be inher- ently unable to fashion a life for himself in Italy simply because he finds that country disagreeable. With respect to the alleged finan- cial hardship to the respondent's family, we note that his mother and sister are presently employed on a full-time basis and that his family have managed to support themselves while the respondent has been in prison. We also are not satisfied that the respondent has demonstrated rehabilitation, which can be another favorable consideration in the discretionary evaluation. In. fact, an applicant for relief under sec- tion 212(c) of the Act with a criminal record will ordinarily be re- quired to make a showing of rehabilitation before relief will be con- sidered as a matter of discretion. Matter of Marie, supra. In evalu- ating the respondent's record in this regard, we note that he was convicted of a serious drug offense in March 1983, for which he was sentenced to 5 years' probation, and that he completed a drug reha- bilitation program subsequent to this conviction. Yet in October 1984, while still on probation, the respondent perpetrated his second serious offense, attempted robbery, for which he received a prison sentence and had his probation revoked. Moreover, we ob- serve that the respondent gave contradictory testimony as to the length of time he was able to remain free of drugs. Although he testified that he did not begin taking drugs again until 4 months after the end of the substance abuse program, i.e., November 1984, he also stated at the hearing that he joined in the October 12, 1984, robbery scheme in order to support his ongoing drug habit. Demon- strably, the fact of his probation and participation in a substance abuse program had no rehabilitative effect. Given this history, we cannot conclude that his expressed reformation and participation in prison programs and prison employment adequately establish genuine rehabilitation. Even considering the outstanding equities which the respondent has boon able to establish, we do not find that granting relief is warranted or in the best interests of this country. In reaching this conclusion, we have evaluated the respondent's equities against the serious adverse factors present in his case and our determination

记录，或者，即使情况如此，他将在没有他们帮助的情况下无法为自己提供住所。尽管被申请人坚持认为先前家庭在意大利重新定居的尝试以失败告终，因此他无法独自在那里成功，但我们注意到，为最近一次失败提供的具体理由是他无法赚到足够的钱来养家，以及他不喜欢意大利。我们注意到，如果被申请人被驱逐，他将只需养活自己。此外，我们并不确信被申请人将仅仅因为觉得该国令人不快就天生无法在意大利为自己营造生活。关于所称对被申请人家庭的经济困难，我们注意到他的母亲和姐妹目前全职就业，且在其入狱期间其家庭设法自给自足。 我们也不满意被申请人已证明康复，康复可以是裁量评估中的另一个有利考虑因素。事实上，有犯罪记录的《移民与国籍法》第212(c)条救济申请人通常需要在救济作为裁量事项被考虑之前证明康复。Matter of Marie，同上。在评估被申请人在此方面的记录时，我们注意到他于1983年3月被判定犯有严重毒品罪行，为此被判处5年缓刑，且他在此定罪后完成了一个毒品康复项目。然而在1984年10月，仍在缓刑期间，被申请人实施了其第二项严重罪行——企图抢劫，为此他获得监禁刑期且其缓刑被撤销。此外，我们注意到被申请人就他能够保持无毒品的时间长度提供了相互矛盾的证词。尽管他作证称他在物质滥用项目结束后4个月，即1984年11月，才开始再次吸毒，但他也在听证会上表示他加入1984年10月12日的抢劫计划是为了支持其持续的吸毒习惯。显然，其缓刑和参与物质滥用项目的事实没有产生康复效果。鉴于这一历史，我们不能得出结论，即其表达的改过自新以及参与监狱项目和监狱就业充分证明了真正的康复。 即使考虑被申请人能够确立的杰出衡平因素，我们也不认为授予救济是正当的或符合本国的最佳利益。在得出这一结论时，我们评估了被申请人的衡平因素与本案中存在的严重不利因素，且我们的裁定

that he has not demonstrated rehabilitation. While his deportation may well involve hardship to himself and certainly much unhappi- ness for his family, the responsibility for this result rests with the respondent alone. As a final matter, we conclude that the respondent has failed to establish that he was prejudiced because his hearing was conducted in a prison environment. He has offered no specific examples as to how the immigration judge may have been biased by the setting. After a review of the record, we are satisfied that the conduct of the hearing and the immigration judge's decision were fair and im- partial_ Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

即他未证明康复。虽然其驱逐很可能给他本人带来困难，并肯定给其家庭带来许多不幸，但这一结果的责任仅在于被申请人本人。 作为最后事项，我们得出结论，被申请人未能证明其因听证会在监狱环境中进行而受到偏见。他未提供具体例子说明移民法官可能如何因该环境而产生偏见。经审查记录，我们满意地认为听证会的进行和移民法官的决定是公平和公正的。 因此，上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。