United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals: For The First Circuit
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Souter,* Associate Justice,
and Selya, Circuit Judge.
Appeals
(BIA)
denying
his
request
for
voluntary
BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are easily assembled. The petitioner,
See 8 U.S.C.
-2-
This report
claim
introduced
for
voluntary
into
departure.
evidence.
At
the
The
end
police
of
the
report
was
hearing,
the
far
outweighed
any
factors
and,
thus,
the
the
criminal
charges
were
dismissed
because
the
In reconsidering
The
This time
-4-
followed.
II.
ANALYSIS
Voluntary departure is a discretionary form of relief.
See
U.S.C.
1229c(a)(1),
(b)(1).
It
benefits
both
the
See id.
-5-
admits of exceptions."
at 7].
-6-
With respect to
is
controlling
here.
Accordingly,
we
Ramirez-
dismiss
the
See id. at ___ [slip op. at 9]; see also Castro v. Holder, 727 F.3d
125,
129-30
(1st
Cir.
2013)
(concluding
that
court
lacked
posits
that
the
agency
either
ignored
or
This
misconstrued
As
-8-
relief,
concluding
that
this
question
was
so
See id. at
See id.
considered,
however,
we
ruled
that
we
lacked
-9-
close,
but
we
need
not
grapple
with
it.
Assuming,
for
it
is
settled
beyond
hope
of
As an initial
contradiction
that
in
There are, of
the
police
report
was
reliable
-10-
and
probative
of
the
petitioner's character.
479-80 (1st Cir. 1994); Matter of Thomas, 21 I&N Dec. 20, 23-24
(BIA 1995).
character
relief).3
(and,
thus,
his
suitability
for
discretionary
See id. at 6.
810 (9th Cir. 1994); Parcham v. INS, 769 F.2d 1001, 1005 (4th Cir.
1985).
legal
petitioner's
by
considering
arrest
as
the
police
negative
report
factor
describing
weighing
the
against
discretionary relief.
III.
CONCLUSION
We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
So Ordered.
-13-